An Evaluation of Students’ Performance in Poster Presentations Using Fuzzy Evaluation Method

Authors

  • Khairu Azlan Abd Aziz Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perlis Branch, Arau Campus
  • Mohd Fazril Izhar Mohd Idris Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perlis Branch, Arau Campus
  • Wan Suhana Wan Daud Institute of Engineering Mathematics, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Arau, Malaysia
  • Muhamad Amirul Sudin Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perlis Branch, Arau Campus

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24191/jcrinn.v6i3.226

Keywords:

poster presentation, fuzzy evaluation method, student's performance, membership function

Abstract

Poster presentation encompasses many elements such as the organization of poster, the content related to the title proposed, the appearance and the written word. Usually, the poster presentation is used as a platform for student to present their final year project or any other competitions. Students will be evaluated based on the criteria that meets the requirements proposed by the panels or judges. However, their performance in poster presentations does not provide the suitable techniques to estimate the actual value since it involves the elements of fuzziness.  In this study, the fuzzy evaluation technique will be applied to measure the performance of the poster presentation. The motivation behind poster presentation is to determine the performance of students using fuzzy evaluation method. The objective of this study is to compare the results between using conventional method and fuzzy evaluation method.  The method consists of normalizing the marks, developing the graph of fuzzy membership function, calculating the degree of satisfaction, and finalizing the actual marks. We believed that the result from this study could be able to measure the better output with the consideration of linguistic terms includes excellent, good, moderate, satisfactory, and so on. This method also can be an alternative way to evaluate the performance of the poster presentation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Chen, S.M. & Lee, C.H. (1999). New methods for students’ evaluation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 104, pp. 209-218.

Cheng, C.B. (2004). Group opinion aggregation based on a grading process: A method for constructing triangular fuzzy numbers. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, vol. 48, pp. 1619-1632.

Daud, W.S.W., Abd Aziz, K.A. & Sakib, E. (2011). An Evaluation of Students' Performance in Oral Presentation Using Fuzzy Approach. Empowering Science, Technology and Innovation towards a Better Tomorrow, UMTAS, pp. 157-162.

Hameed, I.A. & Sorensen C.G. (2010) Fuzzy systems in education: A more reliable system for student evaluation. In: Fuzzy Systems. InTech, Croatia, pp 1–16.

Ivanova, V. & Zlatanov, B. (2020). A note on the use of fuzzy logic in the evaluation of students’ test results. MATTEX Conference 2020: Mathematics and Natural Sciences, vol. 1, pp. 21 – 25.

Kharola, A., Kunwar, S. & Choudhury, G.B. (2015). Students’ performance evaluation: A fuzzy logic reasoning approach. PM World Journal vol. IV, issue IX.

Lin, C.T, Chiu, H. & Tseng, Y. H. (2006). Agility evaluation using fuzzy logic. International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 101, 2, pp. 353-368.

Mamatha, G., Sridhar R. & Balasubramanian, S. (2016). Fuzzy logic as a tool for evaluation of performance appraisal of faculty in higher education institutions. SHS Web of Conference vol. 26, 01121.

Zaporozhko,V., Shardakov, V. & Parfenov, D. (2020). Fuzzy model for evaluating the results of online learning. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 734 012150.

Downloads

Published

2021-09-13

How to Cite

Abd Aziz, K. A., Mohd Idris, M. F. I., Wan Daud, W. S., & Sudin, M. A. . (2021). An Evaluation of Students’ Performance in Poster Presentations Using Fuzzy Evaluation Method. Journal of Computing Research and Innovation, 6(3), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.24191/jcrinn.v6i3.226