A Nano Topology Based Assessment with Parameter Reduction in Mathematics Education

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare eight evaluations and is to give an assessment in mathematics education via nano-topology. The effectiveness of the nano-topology method is evaluated by learning readiness, in-class performance, responsibility, parental awareness, behaviour, interest, success points at the end of the term, and exam points. Despite the lack of a theoretical contribution, the study provides insight into the use of nano-topology in parameter reduction. In this regard, it is suggested that similar evaluations can be made using traditional statistical methods and machine learning techniques.

Keywords

• Rough set
• nano topology
• decision making
• alternative evaluation
• evaluation algorithm

Matematik Eğitiminde Parametre İndirgeme ile Nano Topoloji Tabanlı Bir Değerlendirme / A Nano Topology Based Assessment with Parameter Reduction in Mathematics Education

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, sekiz öğretmen değerlendirmesi karşılaştırarak ve nano-topoloji yoluyla matematik eğitiminde bir değerlendirme yapmaktır. Nano-topoloji yönteminin etkinliği, öğrenmeye hazır bulunuşluk, sınıf içi performans, sorumluluk, ebeveyn farkındalığı, davranış, ilgi, dönem sonundaki başarı puanları ve sınav puanları ile değerlendirilir. Teorik bir katkı olmamasına rağmen, çalışma, parametre indirgemede nano-topolojinin kullanımına dair fikir vermektedir. Bu bağlamda geleneksel istatistiksel yöntemler ve makine öğrenmesi teknikleri kullanılarak benzer değerlendirmelerin yapılabileceği önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• Kaba küme
• nano topoloji
• karar verme
• alternatif değerlendirme
• değerlendirme algoritması

References

1. [1] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control, Elsevier, 8(3) (1965) 338-353.
2. [2] Z. Pawlak, Rough set, International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, Plenum Publishing Corporation, 11(5) (1982) 341-356.
3. [3] M. A. Al Shumrani, S. Topal, F. Smarandache, C. Özel, Covering-Based Rough Fuzzy, Intuitionistic Fuzzy and Neutrosophic Nano Topology and Applications, IEEE Access, 7(2019) 172839-172846.
4. [4] M. L. Thivagar, I. G. Antoinette, Note on Nano Hyperconnected Spaces, South East Asian J. of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, 15(1) (2019) 25-36
5. [5] M. L. Thivagar, S. P. R. Priyalatha, Medical Diagnosis in an Indiscernibility Matrix Based on Nano Topology, Cogent Mathematics and Statistics, 4(1) (2017) 1330180.
6. [6] M. L. Thivagar, C. Richard, N. R. Paul, Mathematical Innovations of a Modern Topology in Medical Events, International Journal of Information Science, 2(4) (2012) 33-36.
7. [7] M. L. Thivagar, C. Richard, On Nano Forms of Weakly Open Sets, International Journal of Mathematics and Statistics Invention, 1/1 (2013) 31-37.
8. [8] M. L. Thivagar, C. Richard, Nutrition Modeling Through Nano Topology, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 4(1) (2014) 327-334.

9. [9] M. L. Thivagar, C. Richard, Note on Nano Topological Spaces. (communicated)
10. [10] M. L. Thivagar, S. D. Vijayarajan, On Multi-Granular Nano Topology, South East Asian Bulletin of Mathematics, Springer Verlag, 40 (2016) 875-885.
11. [11] N. Barootchi N, M. H. Keshavarz, Assessment of Achievement Through Portfolios and Teacher-Made Tests, Educational Research, 44 (2002) 279-288.
12. [12] C. R. Hancock, Alternative Assessment and Second Language Study What and Why? ERIC Digest (1994). http://www.eric.ed.gov (Access Date: 22.11.2020)
13. [13] E. V. Hamayan, Approaches to Alternative Assessment, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15(1995) 212-226.
14. [14] D. Zmbicki, Examining the Effects of Alternative Assessment on Student Motivation and Self-Efficacy, PhD. Dissertation (2007), Walden University, Minnesota, USA
15. [15] E. Karaca, Ölçme ve Değerlendirmede Temel Kavramlar. Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme (1-36), ISBN 9786051339399, Ankara Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara, 2008.
16. [16] K. Adanalı, A. Doğanay, The Evaluation of Alternative Assessment Practices in Fifth Grade Social Studies Instruction, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(1), 271-292.
17. [17] J. Alderson, J. Banerjee, Language Testing and Assessment (Part 1) Language Teaching, 34 (4) (2001) 213-236. https://core.ac.uk/reader/71410
18. [18] M. Syaifuddin, Implementation of Authentic Assessment on Mathematics Teaching: Study on Junior High School Teachers, European Journal of Educational Research, 9(4) (2020), 1491-1502.
19. [19] Z. Arifin, Development of Authentic Assessment Instrument for Performance in Learning Mathematics in Linear Program, Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(2) (2018), 154–162.
20. [20] L. Darling-Hammond, L. Flook, C. Cook-Harvey, B. Barron, D. Osher, Implications for Educational Practice of the Science of Learning and Development, Applied Developmental Science, 24(2) (2020), 97–140.
21. [21] B. M. Mirian, H. Zulnaidi, Mathematics Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment: Gender and Academic Qualification Comparisons, International Journal of Instruction, 13(2) (2020), 239–252.
22. [22] M. Sabri, H. Retnawati, Fitriatunisyah, The Implementation of Authentic Assessment in Mathematics Learning, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1200(1) (2019), 1–6.
23. [23] E. R. Safitri, Z. Syahrial, D. N. Musnir, The Evaluation of Teacher’s Competencies on Special Education Programs, International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(2) (2019), 362–368.
24. [24] J. W. Creswell, Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative research (4th ed.) (2012), Boston, MA: Pearson.
25. [25] J. R. Fraenkel, N. E. Wallen, H. H. Hyun, How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (8th ed.) (2012), New York Mc Graw Hill.
26. [26] D. M. Mertens, Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, California SAGE Publications (2010).
27. [27] S. Bayhan, M. Şen, Topological Structure of Pawlak Approximation Spaces and Generalized Rough Sets, The Journal of Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, 9(1) (2018) 305-315.
28. [28] N. Levine, 1970, Generalized Closed Sets in Topology, Rend. Circ. Math. Palermo, 19(1970) 89-96.
29. [29] N. Palaniappan, K. R. Chandrasekhara, Regular Generalized Closed Sets, Kyungpook Math. J, 33(1993) 211-219.
30. [30] H. Maki, J. Umehara, T. Noiri, Every Topological Space is Pre- T1/ 2, Mem. Fac. Sci. Kochi Univ. Ser. A. Math., 17 (1996) 33-42.
31. [31] Y. Gnanambal, On Generalized Pre-Regular Closed Sets in Topological Spaces, Indian J. Pure. Appl. Math., 28(3)(1997): 351-360.
32. [32] S. Bhattacharya, On Generalized Regular Closed Sets, International Journal of Contemporary Mathematical Sciences, 6(2011) 145-152.
33. [33] M. Parimala, C. Indirani, S. Jafar, On Nano b-Open Sets in Nano Topological Spaces, Jordan Journal of Mathematics and Statistics (JJMS) 9(3) (2016) 173- 184.
34. [34] C. R. Parvathy, S. Praveena, On Nano Generalized Pre-Regular Closed Sets in Nano Topological Spaces, IOSR Journal of Mathematics (IOSR-JM), 13(2) (2017) 56-60.
35. [35] Y. Qian, C. Dang, J. Liang, D. Tang, Set-Valued Ordered Information Systems, Information Sciences, 179(2009) 2809-2832.
36. [36] E. F. Lashin, T. Medhat, Topological Reduction of Information Systems, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 25(2005) 277-286.
37. [37] M. Yaşar, Ölçme ve Değerlendirme İle İlgili Temel Kavramlar (9-41), Tekindal, S. (Editor), Pegem Academy, Ankara, 2011.
38. [38] M. Bahar M, Z. Nartgün, S. Durmuş, B. Bıçak, Geleneksel-Alternatif Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Öğretmen El Kitabı, ISBN: 9789944919227, 7th Edition, Pegem Academy, Ankara, 2015.
39. [39] T. Kepek, Investigation of the Effect of Alternative Assessment Methods on Academic Success and Teachers and Students’ Views Related to These Methods, Master's Thesis, Necmettin Erbakan University (2019), Konya, Turkey.