Applying Hybrid Fuzzy Conjoint Analysis and Cognitive Maps to Identify Influential Attribute Relationships for Assessment Model Development
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/mjfas.v21n3.4094Keywords:
Fuzzy conjoint method, fuzzy cognitive maps, assessment model, attributes, triangular fuzzy number, problem-solving ability.Abstract
In order to remedy the attribute model's complexity issue, a more systematic strategy to getting started planning must be undertaken during developing an assessment model. This is necessary to resolve problems and controversies associated with the analysis and interpretation of attribute priority and relationships. The aim is to create a more structured model. Hence, this study proposes the use of hybrid triangular fuzzy conjoint and cognitive maps (TrFCCM) methods as an intelligent procedure for identifying attribute priority and constructing an influential relations map (IRM) during the early stage of assessment model development. The case study demonstrates the successful implementation and suitability of this procedure. The findings indicate that executive function plays a significant role in determining students' mathematics problem-solving ability, followed by attention, working memory, emotion, metacognition, and motivation attributes as alternative assessment factors. Furthermore, the resulting IRM provides insights into the relationship between attributes and enhances understanding of the importance of neuroscience mechanistic in mathematics problem-solving ability. The present research advances the scientific knowledge of how analyses multi-criteria decision-making and human decisions using a triangular fuzzy number-based conjoint and cognitive mapping procedure. It also introduces a more effective procedure for identifying and extracting influential relations among attributes during assessment model development. More impressively, this procedure demonstrates a higher level of application, usability, and performance compared to the state-of-the-art (SOTA) procedure.
References
Adetula, O. L. (2015). Mathematics improvement project (NMC-MIP): A project transforming the mathematics performance of students. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 2(2), 104–117.
Karyotaki, M., & Drigas, A. (2016). Latest trends in problem solving assessment. International Journal of Recent Contribution from Engineering, Science & IT, 4(2), 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijes.v4i2.5800
Abdullah, A. H., Fadil, S. S., Rahman, S. N. S. A., Tahir, L. M., & Hamzah, M. H. (2019). Emerging patterns and problems of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) mathematical problem-solving in the Form-three assessment (PT3). South African Journal of Education, 39(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v39n2a1552
Leo, I. D., & Muis, K. R. (2020). Confused, now what? A cognitive-emotional strategy training (CEST) intervention for elementary students during mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62, 101879.
Schindler, M., & Bakker, A. (2020). Affective field during collaborative problem posing and problem solving: A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 105, 303–324.
García, T., Boom, J., Kroesbergen, E. H., Núñez, J. C., & Rodríguez, C. (2019). Planning, execution, and revision in mathematics problem solving: Does the order of the phases matter? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.03.001
Losenno, K. M., Muis, K. R., Munzar, B., Denton, C. A., & Perry, N. E. (2020). The dynamic roles of cognitive reappraisal and self-regulated learning during mathematics problem solving: A mixed methods investigation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101869
Mulyono, & Hadiyanti, R. (2018). Analysis of mathematical problem-solving ability based on metacognition on problem-based learning. IOP Conference Series: Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 983, 012157. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/983/1/012157
Osman, S., Che Yang, C. N. A., Abu, M. S., Ismail, N., Jambari, H., & Kumar, J. A. (2018). Enhancing students’ mathematical problem-solving skills through bar model visualization technique. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(3), 273–279.
McRae, K. (2016). Cognitive emotion regulation: A review of theory and scientific findings. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10, 119–124.
Alpar, G., & Hoeve, M. V. (2019). Towards growth-mindset mathematics teaching in the Netherlands. In C. M. Stracke (Ed.), LINQ, EPiC Series in Education Science (Vol. 2, pp. 1–17).
Otoo, D., Iddrisu, W. A., Kessie, J. A., & Larbi, E. (2018). Structural model of students’ interest and self-motivation to learning mathematics. Education Research International, 2018, 1–10.
Molenberghs, P., Trautwein, F. M., Böckler, A., Singer, T., & Kanske, P. (2016). Neural correlates of metacognitive ability and of feeling confident: A large-scale fMRI study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(12), 1942–1951. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw093
Hohnen, B., & Murphy, T. (2016). The optimum context for learning; drawing on neuroscience to inform best practice in the classroom. Educational & Child Psychology, 33(1), 75–90.
Ridderinkhof, K. R., Wildenberg, W. P. M. van den, Segalowitz, S. J., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Neurocognitive mechanisms of cognitive control: The role of prefrontal cortex in action selection, response inhibition, performance monitoring, and reward-based learning. Brain and Cognition, 56, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2004.09.016
Li, Y., Chen, F., & Huang, W. (2016). Neural plasticity following abacus training in humans: A review and future directions. Neural Plasticity, 2016, 1213723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/1213723
Zeithamova, D., Mack, M. L., Braunlich, K., Davis, T., Seger, C. A., van Kesteren, M. T. R., & Wutz, A. (2019). Brain mechanisms of concept learning. The Journal of Neuroscience, 39(42), 8259–8266. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1166-19.2019
Iuculano, T., et al. (2015). Cognitive tutoring induces widespread neuroplasticity and remediates brain function in children with mathematical learning disabilities. Nature Communications, 6(8453), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9453
Mateos-Aparicio, P., & Rodríguez-Moreno, A. (2019). The impact of studying brain plasticity. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 13, 66. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2019.00066
Liu, Y.-C., & Liang, C. (2020). Neurocognitive evidence for different problem-solving processes between engineering and liberal arts students. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 9(2), 104–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.2020.3940
Grecucci, A., Pappaianni, E., Siugzdaite, R., Theuninck, A., & Job, R. (2015). Mindful emotion regulation: Exploring the neurocognitive mechanisms behind mindfulness. BioMed Research International, 2015, 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/670724
Bueren, N. E. R. van, Kroesbergen, E. H., & Cohen Kadosh, R. (2021). Neurocognitive mechanisms of numerical intervention studies: The case of brain stimulation. In A. Henik & W. Fias (Eds.), Heterogeneous Contributions to Numerical Cognition: Learning and Education in Mathematical Cognition (pp. 253–276).
Gul, F., & Shehzad, S. (2012). Relationship between metacognition, goal orientation and academic achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1864–1868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.914
Passolunghi, M. C. (2011). Cognitive and emotional factors in children with mathematical learning disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58(1), 61–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2011.547351
Menon, V., & Chang, H. (2021). Emerging neuro-developmental perspectives on mathematical learning. Developmental Review, 60, 100964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2021.100964
Davachi, L., Kiefer, T., Rock, D., & Rock, L. (2010). Learning that lasts through AGES: Maximizing the effectiveness of learning initiatives. Neuroleadership Journal, 3, 53–63.
De Smedt, B., Ansari, D., Grabner, R. H., Hannula-Sormunen, M., Schneider, M., & Verschaffel, L. (2011). Cognitive neuroscience meets mathematics education: It takes two to Tango. Educational Research Review, 6(3), 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.10.002
Alghafri, A. S. R., & Ismail, H. N. (2011). The effects of neuroscience- and non-neuroscience-based thinking strategies on primary school students’ thinking. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3291–3298.
Albayrak, E., & Akgün, Ö. E. (2022). A program development model for information technologies curriculum in secondary schools. Participatory Educational Research, 9(5), 161–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.22.109.9.5
Sarkar, S. (2013). Competency based training need assessment – Approach in Indian companies. Organizacija, 46(6). http://organizacija.fov.uni-mb.si/index.php/organizacija/article/view/531
Roberson, L., Kulik, C. T., & Pepper, M. B. (2003). Using needs assessment to resolve controversies in diversity training design. Group & Organization Management, 28(1), 148–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102250028
Sarala, N., & Kavitha, R. (2015). Model of mathematics teaching: A fuzzy set approach. IOSR Journal of Mathematics, 11(1-1), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.9790/5728-11111922
Gupta, K. (2011). A practical guide to needs assessment. John Wiley & Sons.
Kwok, R. C. W., Ma, J., Vogel, D., & Zhou, D. (2001). Collaborative assessment in education: An application of a fuzzy GSS. Information & Management, 39(3), 243–253.
Jeong, J. S., & Gonzalez-Gomez, D. (2020). Assessment of sustainability science education criteria in online-learning through fuzzy-operational and multi-decision analysis and professional survey. Heliyon, 6(8), e04706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04706
Volarić, T., Brajković, E., & Sjekavica, T. (2014). Integration of FAHP and TOPSIS methods for the selection of appropriate multimedia application for learning and teaching. International Journal of Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 8, 224–232.
Gopal, K., Salim, N. R., & Ayub, A. F. M. (2020). Malaysian undergraduates' perceptions of learning statistics: Study on attitudes towards statistics using fuzzy conjoint analysis. ASM Science Journal, 13, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.32802/asmscj.2020.sm26(2.15)
Osman, R., Ramli, N., Badarudin, Z., Ujang, S., Ayub, H., & Asri, S. N. F. (2019). Fuzzy number conjoint method to analyse students’ perceptions on the learning of calculus. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1366, 012117. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1366/1/012117
Bakar, M. A. A., Ab Ghani, A. T., & Abdullah, M. L. (2024). Fuzzy conjoint need assessment method for model development justification. Malaysian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 20(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.11113/mjfas.v20n1.3211
Zimmermann, H. J. (2001). Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0646-0
Wang, L. X. (1999). A course in fuzzy systems and control. Prentice-Hall.
Hsieh, C. H., & Chen, S. H. (1999). Similarity of generalized fuzzy numbers with graded mean integration representation. Proceedings of the 8th International Fuzzy Systems Association World Congress (pp. 551–555).
Saraswathi, & Prakash, P. (2018). A ranking analysis of triangular fuzzy cognitive maps (TrFCM). International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 118(23), 185–193.
Anand, M. C. J., & Devadoss, A. V. (2013). Using new triangular fuzzy cognitive maps (TRFCM) to analyze causes of divorce in family. International Journal of Communications and Networking Systems, 2, 205–213.
Selvam, P. (2015). A statistical approach for analyse the causes of school dropout using triangular fuzzy cognitive maps and combined effect time dependent data matrix (STrFCMs & CETDM). Malaya Journal of Matematik, 1, 252–265.
Dorantes-González, D. J., & Balsa-Yepes, A. (2020). A neuroscience-based learning technique: Framework and application to STEM. International Journal of Educational and Pedagogical Sciences, 14(3), 197–200.
Amran, M. S., Rahman, S., Surat, S., & Abu Bakar, A. Y. (2019). Connecting neuroscience and education: Insight from neuroscience findings for better instructional learning. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(2), 341–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/jegys.559933
Ari Firmanto, Hitipeuw, I., Pali, M., & Hanurawan, F. (2019). Learning style-based teaching to enhance student metacognition skills (review of neuroscience learning theory). Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 304, 467–472.
Patten, K. E. (2011). The somatic appraisal model of affect: Paradigm for educational neuroscience and neuropedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 87–97.
Nouri, A. (2016). Exploring the nature and meaning of theory in the field of neuroeducation studies. International Journal of Educational and Pedagogical Sciences, 10(8), 2743–2746.
Davis, J., Balda, M., Rock, D., McGinniss, P., & Davachi, L. (2014). The science of making learning stick: An update to the AGES model. Neuroleadership Journal, 5, 1–15.
Willis, J. (2008). How your child learns best: Brain-friendly strategies you can use to ignite your child’s learning and increase school success. Sourcebooks.
Mareschal, D. (2016). The neuroscience of conceptual learning in science and mathematics. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10, 114–118.
Adiastuty, N., Waluya, S. B., Rochmad, & Aminah, N. (2020). Neuroscience study: Gender and mathematical creative thinking skills in vocational high school students. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1613, 012056. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1613/1/012056
Looi, C., et al. (2016). The neuroscience of mathematical cognition and learning. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 136. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlwmn3ntbr7-en
Pollack, C., & Price, G. R. (2019). Neurocognitive mechanisms of digit processing and their relationship with mathematics competence. NeuroImage, 185, 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.047
Clark, C. A. C., Hudnall, R. H., & Pérez-González, S. (2020). Children's neural responses to a novel mathematics concept. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 20, 100128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2020.100128
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2016). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. Journal of Education, 196(2), 1–38.
Halim, A. B. A., & Idris, A. (2022). The application of triangular fuzzy number-based conjoint analysis method in measuring students’ satisfaction toward UTM bus services. Proceedings of Science and Mathematics, 9, 33–43.
Kasim, Z., & Sukri, N. L. M. (2022). Measuring student’s perception on mathematics learning using fuzzy conjoint analysis. Journal of Computing Research and Innovation, 7(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.24191/jcrinn.v7i1.270
Mohd, N., Mahmood, T. F. P. T., & Ismail, M. N. (2011). Factors that influence students in mathematics achievement. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(3), 49–54.
Mukhtar, N. I., & Sulaiman, N. H. (2021). Triangular fuzzy number-based conjoint analysis method and its application in analyzing factors influencing postgraduates program selection. Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 15(2), 283–291.
Chaghooshi, A., Arab, A., & Dehshiri, S. (2016). A fuzzy hybrid approach for project manager selection. Decision Science Letters, 5(3), 447–460.
Hwang, G. J., Sung, H. Y., Chang, S. C., & Huang, X. C. (2020). A fuzzy expert system-based adaptive learning approach to improving students’ learning performances by considering affective and cognitive factors. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100003.
Sato-Ilic, M., & Ilic, P. (2013). Fuzzy dissimilarity based multidimensional scaling and its application to collaborative learning data. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 490–495.
Sri Andayani, Sri Hartati, Wardoyo, R., & Mardapi, D. (2017). Decision-making model for student assessment by unifying numerical and linguistic data. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 7(1), 363–373. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v7i1.pp363-373
Stojanović, J., Petkovic, D., Alarifi, I. M., Cao, Y., Denic, N., Ilic, J., . . . Milickovic, M. (2021). Application of distance learning in mathematics through adaptive neuro-fuzzy learning method. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 93, 107270.
Aytekin, A. (2021). Comparative analysis of the normalization techniques in the context of MCDM problems. Decision Making Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame210402001a
Bakar, M. A. A., Ab Ghani, A. T., & Abdullah, M. L. (2024). Integrating fuzzy-based evaluation method to analyse attributes and parameters for the assessment model development. Malaysian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 20(6), 1460–1477. https://doi.org/10.11113/mjfas.v20n6.3485
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Mohamad Ariffin Abu Bakar, Ahmad Termimi Ab Ghani, Mohd Lazim Abdullah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
