USTW与STW:基于Bloom分类法的试题分类比较分析

Mendel Pub Date : 2022-12-20 DOI:10.13164/mendel.2022.2.025
Mohammed Osman Gani, R. Ayyasamy, A. Sangodiah, Yong Tien Fui
{"title":"USTW与STW:基于Bloom分类法的试题分类比较分析","authors":"Mohammed Osman Gani, R. Ayyasamy, A. Sangodiah, Yong Tien Fui","doi":"10.13164/mendel.2022.2.025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bloom’s Taxonomy (BT) is widely used in educational institutions to produce high-quality exam papers to evaluate students’ knowledge at different cognitive levels. However, manual question labeling takes a long time, and not all evaluators are familiar with BT. The researchers worked to automate the exam question classification process based on BT as a solution. Enhancement in term weighting is one of the ways to increase classification accuracy while working with text data. However, all the past work on the term weighting in exam question classification focused on unsupervised term weighting (USTW) schemes. The supervised term weighting (STW) schemes showed effectiveness in text classification but were not addressed in past studies of exam question classification. As a result, this study focused on the effectiveness of STW in classifying exam questions using BT. Hence, this research performed a comparative analysis between the USTW schemes and STW for exam question classification. The STW schemes used in this study are TF-ICF, TF-IDF-ICF, and TF-IDF-ICSDF, whereas the USTW schemes used for comparison are TF-IDF, ETF-IDF, and TFPOS-IDF. This study used Support Vector Machines (SVM), Na¨ıve Bayes (NB), and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) to train the model. Accuracy and F1 score were used in this study to evaluate the classification result. The experiment result showed that overall, the STW scheme TF-ICF outperformed all the other schemes, followed by the USTW scheme ETF-IDF. Both the ETF-IDF and TFPOS-IDF outperformed standard TFIDF. The outcome of this study indicates the future research direction where the combination of STW and USTW schemes may increase the Accuracy of BT-based exam question classification.","PeriodicalId":38293,"journal":{"name":"Mendel","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"USTW Vs. STW: A Comparative Analysis for Exam Question Classification based on Bloom’s Taxonomy\",\"authors\":\"Mohammed Osman Gani, R. Ayyasamy, A. Sangodiah, Yong Tien Fui\",\"doi\":\"10.13164/mendel.2022.2.025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Bloom’s Taxonomy (BT) is widely used in educational institutions to produce high-quality exam papers to evaluate students’ knowledge at different cognitive levels. However, manual question labeling takes a long time, and not all evaluators are familiar with BT. The researchers worked to automate the exam question classification process based on BT as a solution. Enhancement in term weighting is one of the ways to increase classification accuracy while working with text data. However, all the past work on the term weighting in exam question classification focused on unsupervised term weighting (USTW) schemes. The supervised term weighting (STW) schemes showed effectiveness in text classification but were not addressed in past studies of exam question classification. As a result, this study focused on the effectiveness of STW in classifying exam questions using BT. Hence, this research performed a comparative analysis between the USTW schemes and STW for exam question classification. The STW schemes used in this study are TF-ICF, TF-IDF-ICF, and TF-IDF-ICSDF, whereas the USTW schemes used for comparison are TF-IDF, ETF-IDF, and TFPOS-IDF. This study used Support Vector Machines (SVM), Na¨ıve Bayes (NB), and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) to train the model. Accuracy and F1 score were used in this study to evaluate the classification result. The experiment result showed that overall, the STW scheme TF-ICF outperformed all the other schemes, followed by the USTW scheme ETF-IDF. Both the ETF-IDF and TFPOS-IDF outperformed standard TFIDF. The outcome of this study indicates the future research direction where the combination of STW and USTW schemes may increase the Accuracy of BT-based exam question classification.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mendel\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mendel\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13164/mendel.2022.2.025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mendel","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13164/mendel.2022.2.025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

布鲁姆分类法(Bloom ' s Taxonomy, BT)被广泛应用于教育机构,用于制作高质量的试卷,以评估学生在不同认知水平上的知识。然而,人工题型标注耗时长,而且并非所有评价者都熟悉BT,研究人员致力于基于BT的考试题型自动分类过程作为解决方案。增强词权是在处理文本数据时提高分类准确性的方法之一。然而,以往关于题型分类中词权的研究主要集中在无监督词权(USTW)方法上。监督项加权(STW)方法在文本分类中表现出一定的有效性,但在以往的考试问题分类研究中尚未得到解决。因此,本研究关注的是STW在利用BT对试题进行分类时的有效性。因此,本研究对USTW方案和STW在试题分类方面进行了对比分析。本研究中使用的STW方案为TF-ICF、TF-IDF- icf和TF-IDF- icsdf,而用于比较的USTW方案为TF-IDF、TF-IDF和TFPOS-IDF。本研究使用支持向量机(SVM)、纳伊ıve贝叶斯(NB)和多层感知器(MLP)来训练模型。本研究采用准确率和F1评分来评价分类结果。实验结果表明,总体而言,STW方案TF-ICF性能优于其他方案,其次是USTW方案ETF-IDF。ETF-IDF和TFPOS-IDF均优于标准TFIDF。本研究的结果表明了未来的研究方向,即STW和USTW方案的结合可能会提高基于bt的考试问题分类的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
USTW Vs. STW: A Comparative Analysis for Exam Question Classification based on Bloom’s Taxonomy
Bloom’s Taxonomy (BT) is widely used in educational institutions to produce high-quality exam papers to evaluate students’ knowledge at different cognitive levels. However, manual question labeling takes a long time, and not all evaluators are familiar with BT. The researchers worked to automate the exam question classification process based on BT as a solution. Enhancement in term weighting is one of the ways to increase classification accuracy while working with text data. However, all the past work on the term weighting in exam question classification focused on unsupervised term weighting (USTW) schemes. The supervised term weighting (STW) schemes showed effectiveness in text classification but were not addressed in past studies of exam question classification. As a result, this study focused on the effectiveness of STW in classifying exam questions using BT. Hence, this research performed a comparative analysis between the USTW schemes and STW for exam question classification. The STW schemes used in this study are TF-ICF, TF-IDF-ICF, and TF-IDF-ICSDF, whereas the USTW schemes used for comparison are TF-IDF, ETF-IDF, and TFPOS-IDF. This study used Support Vector Machines (SVM), Na¨ıve Bayes (NB), and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) to train the model. Accuracy and F1 score were used in this study to evaluate the classification result. The experiment result showed that overall, the STW scheme TF-ICF outperformed all the other schemes, followed by the USTW scheme ETF-IDF. Both the ETF-IDF and TFPOS-IDF outperformed standard TFIDF. The outcome of this study indicates the future research direction where the combination of STW and USTW schemes may increase the Accuracy of BT-based exam question classification.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Mendel
Mendel Decision Sciences-Decision Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信