The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Analyzing Students’ Performance Using Fuzzy Logic and Hierarchical Linear Regression
Open accessAbstract
Due to the COVID-19 situation, all activities, including education, were shifted to online platforms.Consequently, instructors encountered increased challenges in evaluating students.In traditional assessment methods, instructors often face ambiguous cases when evaluating students' competencies.Recent research has focused on the effectiveness of fuzzy logic in assessing students' competencies, considering the presence of uncertain factors or multiple variables.Additionally, demographic characteristics, which can potentially influence students' performance, are not typically utilized as inputs in the fuzzy logic method.Therefore, analyzing students' performance by incorporating these factors is crucial in suggesting adjustments to teaching and learning strategies.In this study, we employ a combination of fuzzy logic and hierarchical linear regression to analyze students' performance.The experiment involved 318 students from various programs and showed that the hybrid approach assessed students' performance with greater nuance and adaptability when compared to a traditional method.Moreover, the findings in this study revealed the following: 1) There are differences in students' performance between traditional and fuzzy evaluation methods; 2) The learning method is an impact on students' fuzzy grades; 3) Students studying online do not perform better than those studying onsite.These findings suggest that instructors and educators should explore effective strategies being fair and suitable in assessment and learning.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Recent applications of fuzzy logic to grading and evaluation contexts similarly report improvements in fairness, consistency, and interpretability when compared with conventional aggregation-based assessment models (Barlybayev et al., 2025; Loan et al., 2024; Tuan et al., 2025).”
From Reducing classification risk in developmental performance assessment using fuzzy logic: evidence from preservice mathematics teacher education (2026) · cites this paper as Loan et al., 2024
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Naccache, H., & Hleiss, R. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1840093
Metadata
- Authors
- Thanh Loan, D. T., Duy Tho, N., Huu Nghia, N., Chien, V. D., & Anh Tuan, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Da Nang (VN)
- Venue
- International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science
- Publisher
- MECS Publisher
- Published
- 2024-02-08
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-10
- ISSN
- 2075-0161 (ISSN-L)
- 2075-017X
- OpenAlex
- W4391436122
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 3.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Edcuational Technology Systems
- Keywords
- student assessment, online learning, COVID-19 remote learning, competency assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review