Linguistic Summarization and Outlier Detection of Blended Learning Data

Abstract

The linguistic summarization of data is one of the study trends in data mining because it has many useful practical applications. A linguistic summarization of data aims to extract an optimal set of linguistic summaries from numeric data. The blended learning format is now popular in higher education at both undergraduate and graduate levels. A lot of techniques in machine learning, such as classification, regression, clustering, and forecasting, have been applied to evaluate learning activities or predict the learning outcomes of students. However, few studies have been examined to transform the data of blended learning courses into the knowledge represented as linguistic summaries. This paper proposes a method of linguistic summarization of blended learning data collected from a learning management system to extract compact sets of interpretable linguistic summaries for understanding the common rules of blended learning courses by utilizing enlarged hedge algebras. Those extracted linguistic summaries in the form of sentences in natural language are easy to understand for humans. Furthermore, a method of detecting the exceptional cases or outliers of the learning courses based on linguistic summaries expressing common rules in different scenarios is also proposed. The experimental results on two real-world datasets of two learning courses of Discrete Mathematics and Introduction to Computer Science show that the proposed methods have promising practical applications. They can help students and lecturers find the best way to enhance their learning methods and teaching style.

1. Introduction

The linguistic summarization of data is one of the study trends in the field of data mining, which extracts useful knowledge represented as summary sentences from numeric data [1,2,3]. Each summary sentence with a prespecified sentence structure in natural language, the so-called linguistic summary (LS), expresses real-world knowledge of objects stored in the numeric datasets. The extracted knowledge expressed in the form of summary sentences is understandable to all users. This kind of knowledge can help human experts in their decision-making in the areas of network flow statistics [4], medical treatment [5,6,7], elderly people health care [8], ferritic steel design [9,10,11], process mining [12], sport [13], explanation of black-box outputs of AI models [14], social and economic analysis [15,16], weather analysis [17], and agriculture [18]. The commonly used structure of the linguistic summary proposed by Yager is a sentence with quantifiers such as “Q y are S” or “Q F y are S” [2]. For instance, “Many (Q) students (y) are with high mid-term score (S)”, “Very many (Q) students (y) with very high average practice score and very many times in direct learning classes (F) obtain very high final exam score (S)”. In these two sentences described above, the semantics of the words “very few”, “many”, “very many”, “high”, and “very high” help readers easily understand the knowledge extracted from the dataset; Q is the linguistic quantifier representing a proportion of the objects in the dataset satisfying the conclusion S in the first structure or a group of objects in the dataset satisfying the filtering condition F in the second structure. Since then, these sentence structures have been used in many studies on the problems of linguistic summarization of data [2,3,4,5,7,9,10,11,12,15,16,17,19], so we also utilize those structures in this study.

In the existing studies utilizing fuzzy set theory, the word semantics in the linguistic summaries, such as “very few”, “most”, “high”, etc., are represented by their associated fuzzy sets. The extracted linguistic summaries are considered fuzzy proportions expressing useful knowledge or information about objects in the designated dataset. The validity measure or truth value measure, calculated based on the membership degree of fuzzy sets representing the computational semantics of linguistic words, is used to evaluate a linguistic summary. To obtain the extracted linguistic summaries with high quality, only those with a value of validity greater than a high enough threshold are extracted. However, a large number of linguistic summaries need to be considered. Therefore, the genetic algorithm is applied to evaluate and choose an optimal set of linguistic summaries [5,9,20,21]. To do so, some constraints and quality evaluation measures are defined to establish an objective function. Furthermore, the authors in [9,20] defined two special genetic operators, the so-called Propositions Improver operator and Cleaning operator, to improve the quality of the extracted linguistic summary set. The interval type-2 fuzzy set is also applied to linguistic summarization instead of the traditional fuzzy set [22].

Although some additional genetic operators are applied, among the 30 linguistic summaries extracted by the enhanced genetic algorithm in [9,20], there is still one of them with a validity value equal to 0, and there are still three of them with a validity value of less than 0.8. These poor results may be due to the number of linguistic quantifier words being only 5 and no record in the dataset satisfying the filtering condition F. Moreover, the fuzzy partitions of the attribute value domains are intuitively designed by human users, so they depend on the designer’s subjective viewpoints. To solve those limitations of the existing methods, Nguyen et al. utilized the enlarged hedge algebras (EHAs) [23] to automatically induce the linguistic value domains of linguistic variables, then establish the fuzzy set-based multi-level semantic structures of linguistic words, which ensures the interpretability of the content of the extracted linguistic summaries [10]. To eliminate the linguistic summaries with a validity value equal to 0 and improve their quality, Lan et al. proposed an enhanced algorithm model by combining a genetic algorithm with a greedy strategy to extract an optimal set of linguistic summaries [24]. This new algorithm model is good enough for us to enhance and apply it to extract linguistic summaries from blended learning data collected from a learning management system (LMS) for supporting educators and lecturers in their course evaluation and management.

Blended learning is increasingly popular in the digital transformation process, especially in universities in Vietnam. Therefore, considerable data about students’ learning behaviors and evaluation scores in the learning processes generated from those courses and stored in LMSs can be analyzed using traditional machine learning techniques, such as classification, regression, clustering, and forecasting, and by applying deep learning techniques. However, each of those techniques is only applied to a specific analysis aspect, such as discovering learning style [25], evaluating learning performance [26], predicting learning outcomes [27,28], etc. Moreover, the explainability of artificial intelligence (AI) models in education has also been examined [29]. Nevertheless, one of the difficulties of studying explainable AI models is that the measures of explainability are not yet defined, so different metrics for evaluating the explainability of AI models have been introduced. So far, few studies have been examined to transform the data of blended learning courses into the knowledge represented as linguistic summaries. This kind of knowledge is easy to read and understand for all people. The extraction model is based on soft computing and knowledge-based systems [3,5,9], so it can complement and even outperform traditional machine learning techniques in educational analytics by enhancing interpretability and explainability, making it easier for educators to understand student performance trends. In contrast to machine learning models that produce complex numerical outputs that are difficult to comprehend, linguistic summarization of data transforms numerical data into meaningful summary sentences, allowing educators to make informed decisions. In addition, linguistic summaries capture qualitative aspects such as learning behaviors and study patterns instead of quantitative metrics. This enables educators to tailor interventions based on detailed student performance descriptions instead of only numerical predictions.

In this study, the algorithm model of linguistic summarization of data proposed in [24] was enhanced and applied to extract compact sets of interpretable linguistic summaries from blended learning data to detect the common rules of blended learning courses. In addition, a method of detecting exceptional cases or outliers of the courses based on a set of linguistic summaries expressing common rules in different scenarios is also proposed by utilizing the order relation property of words induced by enlarged hedge algebras. Outliers can be students’ learning outcomes that differ substantially from the common outcomes. For example, students did not actively take part in the learning activities during the learning course, but they obtained very high exam scores. In the contrary case, students actively took part in the learning activities, but they obtained poor learning outcomes. The experimental results on two real-world datasets of two courses of Discrete Mathematics and Introduction to Computer Science show the practical applications of the proposed methods. Based on the knowledge represented as linguistic summaries, especially the ones expressing outliers, university educators and lecturers can make informed decisions to adjust teaching and learning activities to enhance student’s overall learning outcomes. To achieve this, we define new summary sentence structures adapted to solving problems.

The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents some background knowledge related to our research. Section 3 presents the proposed methods of extracting linguistic summaries from blended learning data. Section 4 presents the experimental results and discussion. Some conclusions are presented in Section 5.

2. Background Knowledge

2.1. Linguistic Summaries with Quantifier Word

In 1982, Yager proposed a method of extracting summary sentences in natural language from numeric data using fuzzy propositions in the form of structures with quantifier words [2]. In this subsection, some concepts and notations related to the problem of extracting a set of compact and optimal linguistic summaries with quantifier words are briefly presented.

Let X = {x₁, x₂, …, x_n} be data patterns representing data objects in a given dataset, and let A = {A₁, A₂, …, A_m} be a set of considering attributes of X. The linguistic summary sentence structure used in this paper is one of the following proposed structures:

Q students are with <S> score,

(1)

Q students with <F> obtain <S> score,

(2)

where S is the summarizer, which includes a linguistic word in the linguistic domain of the linguistic variable associated with the summarizer attribute representing the degree of the conclusion: for example, “extremely high mid-term score”, “very low final exam score”, etc.; Q is the quantifier word expressing the proportion of data patterns satisfying the summarizer S in relation to all patterns in the dataset as the sentence structure (1) or in relation to the number of patterns satisfying the filter criterion F as the sentence structure (2): for example, “few”, “a half”, “very many”, etc.

Validity value or Truth value T has its numeric value in the normalized interval [0, 1] used to evaluate the truth degree of a linguistic summary, and it is considered the truth degree of a fuzzy proposition with a quantifier word.

In the general form, the components F and S are the associations of linguistic predicates AND/OR, and each linguistic theme is determined by a pair of an attribute and a linguistic word: for example, “very high average quiz score and very many slide views”, “few times doing quizzes and long average practice time”, etc. In these filter criteria, the average quiz score, the number of slide views, the number of times doing quizzes, and the average practice time are the filter attributes. To compute the truth value of the fuzzy propositions of the structures (1) and (2), the fuzzy set-based computational semantics of linguistic words in those fuzzy propositions should be designed. μ_Q, μ_F, and μ_S are denoted by the membership degrees of the computational fuzzy set-based semantics of words in Q, F, and S, respectively. The truth value T is the fundamental measure that is applied to evaluate the quality of a linguistic summary and is computed using Zadeh’s formula [30] for fuzzy predicates with quantifier words [9] as follows:

$$T\left(Qy\mathrm{are}S\right)={\mu }_Q\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^n{\mu }_S\left(x_i\right)\right]$$

(3)

$$T\left(QFy\mathrm{are}S\right)={\mu }_Q\left[{\displaystyle \frac{{\sum }_{i=1}^n\left({\mu }_F\left(x_i\right)\wedge {\mu }_S\left(x_i\right)\right)}{{\sum }_{i=1}^n{\mu }_F\left(x_i\right)}}\right]$$

(4)

The linguistic summaries with a truth value greater than a given threshold δ are considered to represent the information and useful knowledge hidden in the given numeric dataset. Therefore, only such linguistic summaries are extracted. To ensure the high quality of the extracted linguistic summary set, the value δ should be greater than or equal to 0.8. Despite setting a given value δ, the cardinality of summary sentences in the extracted set is still very large. Therefore, genetic algorithm models are applied to achieve the optimal set of extracted linguistic summaries [5,9,20,21]. Furthermore, some additional genetic operators, such as imprecision, appropriateness, covering, and focus, are also applied to evaluate and select the best summary set. They are also computed based on the membership degrees of the computational fuzzy set-based semantics of words in the summary sentences [19,31].

2.2. Generating Interpretable Multi-Level Semantic Structures Based on Enlarged Hedge Algebras

In the existing algorithm models of the problem of linguistic summarization of data such as Yager’s [2,3], Diaz’s [9,20], Wilbik’s [31], etc., the number of used linguistic words of the linguistic variable’s domain linked with an attribute of the designated dataset is limited to 7 ± 2. Therefore, the ability to detect special characteristics of data is limited. Moreover, the fuzzy partitions associated with attributes of the dataset are strong and uniform, and they are designed based on the intuitive cognition of human experts. The algorithm models directly manipulate the membership functions of fuzzy sets instead of the inherent semantics of words, so the fuzzy sets determine the quality of the algorithm’s output. Because there is not any formal connection bridge between the inherent semantics of words and their associated fuzzy sets, the words are only the linguistic labels assigned to fuzzy sets. The manipulations on fuzzy sets may not correspond to the manipulations on the inherent semantics of words if the relations between them are not isomorphic. The direct manipulation of linguistic words is very important because the inherent semantics of words in natural language reflect the knowledge of the real world, and humans understand real-word objects through the medium of natural language. The semantic order of linguistic words determines the weak structure of natural language, and it is formalized using a mathematical structure, the so-called hedge algebra (HA) [32,33]. Then, to represent the interval semantic cores of words to adapt to real-world problems, Nguyen et al. extended HA by adding an artificial hedge h₀ [23], the so-called enlarged hedge algebras (EHAs). By utilizing EHA, the linguistic value domains of linguistic variables are automatically induced, and then the fuzzy set-based multi-level semantic structures of linguistic words, which ensure the interpretability of the content of the extracted linguistic summaries, are established [10]. Hereafter is the mathematical formalism to generate such multi-level semantic structures of linguistic words.

Assume that A is a linguistic variable connected with an attribute of a given dataset. Each word has its own semantics that is assigned by humans, and it only has full meaning in relation to all words in the linguistic domain Dom(A) of A. For example, the word “hot” only has full meaning when compared to the word “cold” in the context of the considering problem. Therefore, the semantics of linguistic words should be specified in the context of the entire variable’s domain Dom(A). The authors in [34] proposed a new concept, the so-called linguistic frame of cognition (LFoC) of A, by applying hedge algebras [32,33]. At a given period, the word set taken from an LFoC for describing the universe of discourse of a linguistic variable is finite. In the early days, it commonly consisted of a few words, was short in length, and had general semantics. It means that in HA’s formalism, the value of k, which specifies the maximal length of words in the LFoC, is small, commonly $1\le k\le 3$. When human users need to expand LFoCs to describe more specific cases or to obtain more specific characteristics of data, they only need to add new words with more specific semantics and greater length at level k + 1 by increasing the value of k. By doing so, the semantic order relation, as well as the generality–specificity of the existing words, are still preserved. It also means that the semantics of the existing words remain unchanged when LFoCs are expanded [10,35] by adding new words. This scalable ability is suitable for practical requirements when human users use word sets of LFoCs of attributes of a given dataset in real-world recognition.

Trapezoidal fuzzy sets are commonly used to represent the computational semantics of words in the existing research on the linguistic summarization of data. In the EHA approach [10,24], an interval quantifying mapping (SQM) value of a word is a mapping f: Dom(A) → P[0, 1] (P[0, 1]—all sub-intervals of [0, 1]) that specifies an interval semantic core of the word, and it is considered the numerical semantics of that word. Therefore, the interval semantic core can be used to design the small base of the trapezoidal computational fuzzy set-based semantics of the word. In [23], based on the interval semantic cores (interval SQL values), a procedure to automatically produce such computational semantics of words from a set of given fuzziness parameter values of EHA was proposed. As stated in [23], the fuzziness parameter values of EHA are comprised of the fuzziness measure values of one of two primary words c⁻ (e.g., “low”, “few”, “short”, etc.) and c⁺ (“high”, “many”, “long”, etc.), i.e., m(c⁻) or m(c⁺); the fuzziness measure values of the least word 0, neutral word W, and greatest word 1, i.e., m(1), m(W), and m(1), respectively; and the fuzziness measure values of the linguistic hedges, denoted by μ(h_j), j = 0, …, n, where h_j is a linguistic hedge including an artificial hedge h₀, and n is the number of non-artificial linguistic hedges. For example, when k is set to 3, two primary words are c⁻ (e.g., “low”) and c⁺ (e.g., “high”), the linguistic hedge set is {L (Little), V (Very)}, the steps for producing linguistic words are as follows: First, five words {0, c⁻, W, c⁺, 1} at level 1 are specified. Second, the hedges L, h₀, and V linearly act on two primary words, c⁻ and c⁺, to produce new words at level 2, including {Vc⁻, h₀c⁻, Lc⁻, Lc⁺, h₀c⁺, Vc⁺}. Two words, h₀c⁻ and h₀c⁺, become the semantic cores of c⁻ and c⁺, respectively. Therefore, all words of levels 1 and 2 are {0, Vc⁻, c⁻, Lc⁻, W, Lc⁺, c⁺, Vc⁺, 1}. Last, the hedges L, h₀, and V linearly act on the words at level 2 including {Vc⁻, Lc⁻, Lc⁺, Vc⁺} to produce new words at level 3 including {VVc⁻, h₀Vc⁻, LVc⁻, LLc⁻, h₀Lc⁻, VLc⁻, VLc⁺, h₀Lc⁺, LLc⁺, LVc⁺, h₀Vc⁺, VVc⁺}. Four words h₀Vc⁻, h₀Lc⁻, h₀Lc⁺, and h₀Vc⁺ become semantic cores of Vc⁻, Lc⁻, Lc⁺, and Vc⁺, respectively. Consequently, all linguistic words at levels 1, 2, and 3 in the LFoC generated by acting two linguistic hedges on two primary words are {0, VVc⁻, Vc⁻, LVc⁻, c⁻, LLc⁻, Lc⁻, VLc⁻, W, VLc⁺, Lc⁺, LLc⁺, c⁺, LVc⁺, Vc⁺, VVc⁺, 1} and their semantic cores. These words are arranged by their semantic order. In [10,35], a method of producing the trapezoidal fuzzy sets that constitute an interpretable multi-level semantic structure of a given LFoC of A satisfying the concept of interpretability of Tarski [36] was also proposed. Therefore, when the fuzziness parameter values are given, the fuzziness measure values and interval SQM values of those words are computed. Consequently, an interpretable fuzzy set-based multi-level semantic structure is automatically constructed as in Figure 1 [10,35]. As can be seen in Figure 1, for example, the word Vc⁻ is produced from the word c⁻ by acting the hedge V on c⁻; the semantics of Vc⁻ is more specific than c⁻, but it still conveys the original semantics of c⁻. Therefore, the support of the fuzzy set of Vc⁻ must be within the support of c⁻. It is the same for all other words at levels greater than 1.

To implement the proposed method of detecting linguistic summaries expressing outliers based on a set of linguistic summaries expressing common rules in this paper, the concept of opposite semantics of two words should be defined. In the word set of the given LFoC of A, the word constant W (i.e., “medium”) has neutral semantics, and two-word constants 0 and 1 have the least semantic and greatest semantics, respectively. Two primary words, c⁻ and c⁺, for example, “low” and “high”, have opposite semantics. Assume that there is a hedge h₁ (e.g., “very”) that acts on c⁻ and c⁺; these actions induce two new words h₁c⁻ (e.g., “very low”) and h₁c⁺ (e.g., “very high”), which have opposite semantics. The words hc⁻ and c⁺ also have opposite semantics. It is also true for two words, c⁻ and h₁c⁺. Generally, two words have opposite semantics if and only if they have different primary words.

2.3. Blended Learning Courses on Learning Management Systems

Blended learning is a learning method in which students learn a part directly in traditional classrooms and learn a part online using an LMS. Each learning course has a different learning plan to determine whether the time slots and learning contents are online or offline. This learning plan is given out by lecturers based on the characteristics of the learning courses and the pedagogical ideas of the lecturers.

LMSs store the learning activities of students, such as system login, document (slide) views, video views, homework submissions, quizzes, and practice exercises. The numeric evaluation results of homework, quizzes, and practice exercises are also stored. Therefore, the data on learning progress and frequent evaluation results can be extracted for analysis.

3. Materials and Methods

This section presents our proposed methods for extracting an optimal set of linguistic summaries from blended learning data. Both kinds of linguistic summaries, expressing common rules and expressing outliers, are examined. The scores that students obtain in tests and exams are measures of their learning outcomes. In this study, the attributes in summarizer S of the extracted linguistic summaries are the mid-term test scores, final exam scores, and course final scores. The attributes in the filter criterion F are the attributes of the learning activities of students in the learning process on the LMS.

3.1. A Method of Extracting Linguistic Summaries Expressing Common Rules

A linguistic summary of the structure (2) with quantifier Q expressing a common rule is a true statement for a group of objects that have a significant cardinality in the set of objects under consideration. For example, the linguistic summary “Most students who practice with high results and many times will have high practical test scores” expresses a common rule when the number of students who “practice with high results and many times” is a group that has significant cardinality. To evaluate the cardinality referred to in a linguistic summary of the structure (2), we used the focus measure computed using the following formula [31]:

$$d_f\left(Q F y are S\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^n{\mu }_F\left(y_i\right)$$

(5)

The focus measure value of a linguistic summary should be greater than a given threshold α. Depending on the application requirements in different fields, the focus threshold value should be determined so that the linguistic summary expresses a common rule extracted from a given dataset. A linguistic summary expresses a common rule that should satisfy the following conditions:

• Q has a linguistic word with its semantics from “many” to “almost all”;
• The value of $d_f$ computed using Equation (5) is greater than a given threshold α.

In this subsection, we enhance the genetic algorithm combined with the greedy strategy, Random-Greedy-LS, proposed in [24] to find a set of common rules with a high diversity of learning processes and learning outcomes. The modifications and enhancements of this algorithm are as follows, and its main flow is visualized in Figure 2:

• The set of attributes in the filter criterion F are the attributes reflecting the learning behaviors or activities of students, such as the number of times they view lecture slides, the number of times they do tests, the number of times they practice, the number of times they submit assignments, the total practice time, average practice time, average time of doing quizzes, the scores of practices, the scores of tests, etc.
• The attributes in summarizer S are the attributes reflecting the learning results of students, such as mid-term test scores, final exam scores, and course final scores.
• The threshold α is the minimum value of the focus measure of linguistic summaries.
• Only a linguistic summary with the semantics of the quantifier word Q greater than or equal to the semantics of “many” is included as a gene of an individual in our new algorithm model.
• The maximum specificity of the linguistic words in the LFoCs of all attributes and the quantifier Q is set to 3 (k = 3), so the linguistic word domain is rich enough, leading to the truth value T being approximately 1. Thus, the fitness function of genetic algorithms in our proposed models is only the diversity value instead of the weighted sum of the goodness value and the diversity value as in [24]. Therefore, the linguistic strength concept is not applied, and no weight is assigned to the quantifier words. It means that the applied genetic algorithm in our new algorithm model becomes a single-objective optimization problem.
• The output of the modified algorithm model described above is a set of summary sentences in the form of linguistic rules used to express the learning activities of students and their relations, as well as students’ learning outcomes. In particular, this set of summary sentences also reflects diverse groups of students at different levels of behavior. Therefore, those linguistic rules help students adjust and choose their suitable learning styles to achieve better learning outcomes.

3.2. A Method of Extracting Linguistic Summaries Expressing Outliers

In a practical management context, there is usually a need to detect exceptional cases that differ substantially from the common cases. Such cases are so-called outliers. Some methodologies have been proposed to detect outliers, such as the use of non-monotonic quantifiers and interval-valued fuzzy sets [37], linguistically quantified statements [38], and non-monotonic quantifiers [39]. In the actual context of monitoring students’ learning activities and their learning outcomes, outliers can be students’ learning outcomes that differ substantially from the common outcomes. For example, students did not actively take part in the learning activities during the learning course, but they obtained very high exam scores, or students obtained good scores on mid-term tests and practice tests but obtained bad final exam scores. Outliers are rare, but they can help educators and lecturers detect abnormalities in students’ learning outcomes.

In this paper, we propose a method of extracting linguistic summaries expressing outliers based on a set of linguistic summaries expressing common rules by utilizing the semantic order relation and semantic symmetry properties of words in the linguistic domains induced by enlarged hedge algebras. As stated above, the concept of opposite semantics of two words indicates that two words have their opposite semantics if and only if they have different primary words. This concept comes from the fact that by acting some linguistic hedges on two primary words, the words generated from the negative primary word c⁻ have opposite semantics to the words generated from the positive primary word c⁺. Specifically, in the word set of a given LFoC of a linguistic variable A, the word constant W (i.e., “medium”) has neutral semantics. Two primary words, c⁻ and c⁺, for example, “low” and “high”, have opposite semantics. Assume that there is a hedge h₁ (e.g., “very”) that acts on c⁻ and c⁺; these actions induce two new words h₁c⁻ (e.g., “very low”) and h₁c⁺ (e.g., “very high”), which also have opposite semantics. The words hc⁻ and c⁺ also have opposite semantics. It is the same with two words, c⁻ and h₁c⁺.

The concept of opposite semantics of two words is applied to our proposed algorithm model to detect outliers as follows. In a linguistic summary of the structure (2), if its summarizer S gives a conclusion that deviates too much from the conclusion in the common rules for a group of objects, there exists an outlier. If a linguistic summary of the structure Q₁ F₁ y are S₁ (r*) expresses common rules, a linguistic summary of the structure Q₂ F₁ y are S₂ (o*) expresses an outlier, provided that the following is true:

• S₂ has the opposite semantics to S₁. For example, the semantics of the word “low” is opposite to the semantics of the word “high”;
• Q₂ is a linguistic word that is not “none”, and its semantics represent very few cardinalities, usually “very few”, “very very few”, “extremely few”, or similar.

Thus, compared with the linguistic summaries expressing the common rules (r*) extracted from the dataset, the linguistic summaries (o*) have the same filter criterion F₁, i.e., they reflect the same group of objects, but have two opposite summarizers (S₂ and S₁ have opposite semantics). Q₁ is a word indicating a large quantity, whereas Q₂ indicates next to nothing, which shows that there is an outlier in this group of objects. Outliers of learning behaviors are rare. However, they should be considered to help detect anomalies in learning outcomes or to detect cheating on tests and exams in blended learning courses. To specify the cardinality of objects satisfying summarizer S among the set of objects satisfying filter criterion F, we propose to use the confidence measure β computed using Equation (6).

$$\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^n{\mu }_x({\mathrm{o}}_i)\wedge {\mu }_y({\mathrm{o}}_i)}}{{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^n{\mu }_x({\mathrm{o}}_i)}}}$$

(6)

The steps to detect outliers based on a set of linguistic summaries expressing common rules are as follows and visualized in Figure 3:

Step 1: With the summarizer S₁ of the form “B is y” of each linguistic summary expressing common rules, if y is not “medium” (“medium” is the word that has neutral semantics), replace the word y with the word $\overline{y}$ in the LFoC of attribute B having its semantic opposite to y to form a new summarizer S₂.

Step 2: Compute the cardinality β of objects satisfying “B is $\overline{y}$” in the set of objects satisfying filter criterion F by Equation (6).

Step 3: If β > 0 (an outlier is detected), specify the new quantifier word Q₂ and create a new linguistic summary expressing the outlier with new summarizer S₂ and new quantifier word Q₂.

Step 4: If all linguistic summaries expressing common rules are examined, go to Step 5; otherwise, go to Step 1.

Step 5: Return a set of linguistic summaries expressing outliers.

To perform the evaluation of the extracted outliers, we used the similarity function L(p1, p2) proposed in [9] to check the similarity between the normal linguistic summary p1 and the outlier p2. The similarity value is calculated as follows [9]:

$$L\left(p1, p2\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}Yes if \sum _{k=0}^{m}H({p1}_k,{p2}_k)<2\\ No in other case\end{array}\right.,$$

(7)

where p1₀ and p2₀ are the indexes of the linguistic quantifier Q in Dom(Q) of p1 and p2, respectively; p1_m and p2_m are the indexes of the word summarizers of p1 and p2, respectively; p1_k and p2_k, k = 1, …, m−1, are the indexes of the words in the Dom(A_k) of the qualifiers of p1 and p2, respectively. If the function L returns Yes, the two linguistic summaries are similar. The function H(p1_k, p2_k) determines the semantic distance between two words in the linguistic domain Dom(A_k) of the linguistic variable A_k is calculated as follows [9]:

$$H\left({p1}_k, {p2}_k\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}1 if \left|{p1}_k-{p2}_k\right|>round \left(20\%\times size \left({Dom(A}_k\right)\right) or \\ if {p1}_k=0 and {p2}_k \ne 0 or \\ if {p1}_k\ne 0 and {p2}_k=0 \\ 0 in other case \end{array}\right.$$

(8)

For example, if Dom(A_k) = {“very few”, “few”, “little few”, “medium”, “little many”, “many”, “very many”}, the word “few” at position 2 and the word “many” at position 6 have their distance |2 − 6| > round(20% × 7) = 1. Therefore, the two words “few” and “many” are considered distinct.

4. Results and Analysis

This section presents the experimental results of the proposed algorithm models. Both kinds of linguistic summaries, the ones expressing common rules and the ones expressing outliers, are extracted from blended learning data stored in an LMS.

4.1. Experimented Datasets

First, the dataset of creep [9] was used to compare the proposed model to the existing ones. Then, two datasets of two actual blended learning courses were used in our experiments, i.e., Discrete Mathematics and Introduction to Computer Science courses, taking place at Hanoi National University of Education in the first and second semesters of the 2023–2024 school year, respectively. The number of students joining these courses was 255 and 228, respectively. The weekly learning plans for these two courses included the following: online learning activities are comprised of learning the course’s theory by viewing lecture slides, watching lecture videos, and doing quizzes; on-class learning activities are comprised of theory summarization, doing exercises, etc.; and after class activities are comprised of doing homework, doing practice exercises, etc. However, the activities of those two courses are different, so the collected data from the courses’ activities is split into two datasets. To achieve high-quality and accurate data, a data cleaning procedure was applied to eliminate inconsistent records with missing data or errors.

The Discrete Mathematics course does not include practice activities; therefore, that information is not included in the dataset. The descriptions of the attributes of its dataset are as in

Table 1. Dataset of the Discrete Mathematics course.

No.	Attribute	Description	Min	Max
1	ViewSlideCount	The number of lecture slide views	0	129
2	QuizMax	The maximum quiz score	0	100
3	QuizCount	The number of times of doing quizzes	0	274
4	QuizAvgScore	The average score of quizzes	0	100
5	VideoViewCount	The number of video views	0	88
6	TotalVideoTime	Total video-watching time in minutes	0	1713
7	ExerciseCount	The number of times of doing exercises	0	8
8	OnClassCount	Number of full-time lectures in direct learning in class	18	30
9	MidTermScore	Score of the mid-term exam	0	10
10	FinalExamScore	The score of the final exam	0	10
11	FinalCourseScore	Overall score of the course	0	10

.

The Introduction to Computer Science course includes practice activities, so its dataset has attributes reflecting those learning activities. The descriptions of the attributes of the Introduction to Computer Science dataset are as in

Table 2. Dataset of the Introduction to Computer Science course.

No.	Attribute	Description	Min	Max
1	ViewSlideCount	The number of lecture slide views	0	129
2	TotalQuizTime	Total time of doing quizzes in minutes	28	6757
3	QuizAvgTime	Average time of doing quizzes in minute	26	410
4	QuizCount	The number of quizzes	2	143
5	QuizSumScore	Total score of quizzes	14	1092
6	QuizAvgScore	The average score of quizzes	0	10
7	VideoViewCount	The number of video views	0	30
8	TotalVideoTime	Total video-watching time in minutes	0	410
9	OnClassCount	Number of full-time lectures in direct learning in class	0	22
10	PracticeCount	The number of times of doing practices	2	180
11	TotalPracticeTime	Total practice time in minute	95	540
12	AvgPracticeTime	Average practice time in minute	97	540
13	TotalPracticeScore	Total practice scores	17	132
14	AvgPracticeScore	Average practice scores	0	10
15	SelfLearningScore	Score of self-learning	0	10
16	MidTermScore	Score of the mid-term exam	0	10
17	FinalExamScore	The score of the final exam	0	10
18	FinalCourseScore	Overall score of the course	0	10

:

4.2. Experiment Setups

The proposed algorithm models in this paper were implemented in C# programming language, running on a laptop with Intel Core i7-1360P 2.2 GHz (Intel, Santa Clara, CA, USA), 16 GB RAM, and Windows 11 64-bit. The settings of parameter values of the algorithm models are as follows:

• The maximum number of attributes in the filter criterion F is 6. The number of attributes in the summarizer S is 1. The focus threshold α is 0.01.
• For genetic algorithm models, the number of generations is 100, the number of individuals per generation is 20, the size of the chromosome (the number of summary sentences) is 20, the selection rate is 0.15, the crossover rate is 0.8, and the mutation rate is 0.1.
• The syntactical semantics of EHAs associated with attributes of the experimental datasets are as follows:

  +

  The negative primary word (c⁻) and positive primary word (c⁺) of score’s attributes (e.g., quizzes score, practice score, mid-term score, etc.) are low and high, respectively; Those of time’s attributes (e.g., video watching time, practice time, quizzes time, etc.) are short and high, respectively; Those of counting’s attributes (e.g., the number of slide views, the number of video views, the number of times doing quizzes, the number of times doing exercises, etc.) are few and many, respectively;

  +

  Two linguistic hedges used in our proposed model are Little (L) and Very (V).

• The fuzziness parameter values of EHAs associated with attributes of the experimented datasets are as follows:

  +

  The maximum specificity of the linguistic words in the LFoCs of all attributes and the quantifier Q: k = 3. Therefore, the number of used words in each LFoC is 17. With a high specificity level (k = 3), we have lots of specificity words that can describe more special cases;

  +

  For the attributes related to scores of students, the following is true: m(0) = m(W) = m(1) = 0.1, m(c⁻) = m(c⁺) = 0.35, μ(L) = μ(V) = 0.4, μ(h₀) = 0.2;

  +

  For the quantifier Q and other attributes, the following is true: m(0) = m(1) = 0.05, m(W) = 0.1, m(c⁻) = m(c⁺) = 0.4, μ(L) = μ(V) = 0.4, μ(h₀) = 0.2.

4.3. Experimental Results and Discussion

First, to show the efficiency of our proposed algorithm model, this subsection presents the comparison of the experimental results of our proposed model with the existing ones on the creep dataset [9]. Then, this subsection aims to present the applications of the proposed linguistic summarization model to extract linguistic summaries from datasets of blended learning courses to detect the common rules and outliers of the courses. It is an enhanced version of the Random-Greedy-LS algorithm proposed in [24], whose performance was proved in [11,24]. The linguistic summaries of the form (2) will be extracted. To evaluate each evaluation measure of the given learning courses, the summarizer attribute is, in turn, set to MidTermScore, FinalExamScore, and FinalCourseScore.

4.3.1. Experimental Results on the Creep Dataset

To show the efficacy of the proposed model in comparison with the existing ones, its experimental results on the creep dataset are compared to those of the Hybrid-GA [9] and ACO-LDS [40] models. Specifically, the proposed model was experimentally run 10 times. The results of the 10 runs are averaged, and the comparison results are shown in

Table 3. Comparison of the performance results of the proposed model in this study with the Hybrid-GA [9] and ACO-LDS [40] models.

Model	Fitness	Truth	No. Q > a half	Goodness	Diversity	T > 0.8
Hybrid-GA [9]	0.6931	0.9566	17.8	0.5616	1.0	27.0
ACO-LDS [40]	0.7359	0.9439	21.0	0.6984	0.8233	-
Proposed model	0.8	0.9957	18.8	0.75324	0.91	30

.

As shown in Table 3, the proposed method has an average of fitness function values (Fitness) of 0.8, an average of the truth values (Truth) of 0.9957, an average of the goodness values (Goodness) of 0.75324, which are much better than those of Hybrid-GA [9] and ACO-LDS [40]. Considering the average of the diversity values (Diversity), the value of the proposed model is 0.91, which is better than that of ACO-LDS, with a value of 0.8233, but worse than that of Hybrid-GA, with a value of 1.0. The average number of linguistic summaries with Q greater than a half of the proposed model is 18.8, which is better than that of Hybrid-GA, with a value of 17.8, but worse than that of ACO-LDS, with a value of 21.0. The number of linguistic summaries with a truth value (T) greater than 0.8 of the proposed model is 30, better than that of Hybrid-GA, with a value of 27. The comparison results show the effectiveness of our proposed model.

4.3.2. Extraction of Linguistic Summaries Expressing Common Rules

• For the dataset of the Discrete Mathematics course

The samples of extracted linguistic summaries expressing common rules of this learning course are shown in

Table 4. Linguistic summaries extracted from the dataset of Discrete Mathematics.

No.	Mid-Term Score’s Attribute as a Summarizer
	Linguistic Summary	Truth Value
1	Extremely many students with extremely high average quiz score and many slide views obtain extremely high mid-term score	1.0
2	Extremely many students with extremely many times in direct learning classes, very very high average quiz score medium times of doing quizzes and medium video views obtain extremely high mid-term score	1.0
3	Many students with extremely high max quizzes score and very many slide views obtain extremely high mid-term score	1.0
4	Extremely many students with very high average quiz score, little many video views and little little few times doing quizzes obtain extremely high mid-term score	1.0
5	Extremely many students with extremely many times of doing exercises, extremely high average quiz score and little little few times of doing quizzes obtain extremely high mid-term score	1.0
	Final exam score’s attribute as a summarizer
6	Extremely many students with many times in direct learning class, little many times doing exercises, little few video views and little little few times doing quizzes obtain low final exam score	1.0
7	Extremely many students with little few times of doing exercises, little little few video views and little little short video-watching time obtain little low final exam score	1.0
8	Extremely many students with little very few times doing quizzes, little very many times of doing exercises high average quiz score and very little many video views obtain medium final exam score	1.0
9	Many students with very high quiz score, very many times in direct learning class, very little many video views and little little few times doing quizzes obtain medium final exam score	1.0
10	Extremely many students with little little many times of doing quizzes, extremely many times in direct learning classes and very very high average quiz score obtain little high final exam score	1.0
	Course final score’s attribute as a summarizer
11	Rather very many students with very very few slide views, extremely many times doing exercises and very very high average quiz score obtain high course final score	1.0
12	Very many students with medium times of doing quizzes, medium video-watching time, very high average quiz score and very little many video views obtain high course final score	1.0
13	Extremely very many students with medium video-watching time, many slide views and very many times of doing exercises obtain high course final score	1.0
14	Extremely many students with few slide views, little many video views, many times in direct learning class and very very many times doing exercises obtain medium course final score	1.0
15	Extremely many students with few video views, few times doing exercises and low average quiz score obtain medium course final score	1.0

. Only the linguistic summaries with a truth value of 1.0 are put into Table 4.

It can be shown in the first part of Table 4 that all five linguistic summaries include quiz score information in the filter criteria and have the same summarizer’s extremely high mid-term score. In addition, the semantics of linguistic words expressing the quantitative information of the quiz scores of those linguistic summaries vary from very high to extremely high. Therefore, the quiz score is one of the most important factors that has a big effect on the mid-term score. On the other hand, the other factors that directly or indirectly affect the mid-term score can be the number of lecture slide views, the number of times doing exercises, and the number of full-time lectures in direct learning classes. Therefore, to obtain a high mid-term score, students should improve those activities during the learning course.

As shown in the second part of Table 4, the final exam scores of students are quite low because students did not actively take part in the learning activities during the learning course. Specifically, the number of times doing quizzes and the quiz score are the two most important factors that directly affect the final exam score. Moreover, the number of full-time lectures in direct learning classes and the number of video views are also two factors affecting the final exam score.

The course learning outcome that a student obtains is evaluated by the course final score computed based on the mid-term score, final exam score, and attendance score. Their weights are 0.3, 0.6, and 0.1, respectively. By analyzing the semantics of linguistic words in the filter criteria of linguistic summaries shown in the last part of Table 4, we can see that the quiz score and the number of times doing exercises have a big effect on the learning outcomes of students. The number of slide views does not have much effect because students can download the lecture slides to read offline. In addition, the number of video views and the times in direct learning classes are the other factors that affect the course learning outcome.

• For the dataset of the Discrete Mathematics course

The samples of extracted linguistic summaries expressing common rules of this learning course are shown in

Table 5. Linguistic summaries extracted from the dataset of Introduction to Computer Science.

No.	Mid-Term Score’s Attribute as a Summarizer
	Linguistic Summary	Truth Value
1	Extremely many students with extremely high average quiz score and many slide views obtain extremely high mid-term score	1.0
2	Extremely many students with extremely many times in direct learning classes, very very high average quiz score medium times of doing quizzes and medium video views obtain extremely high mid-term score	1.0
3	Many students with extremely high max quizzes score and very many slide views obtain extremely high mid-term score	1.0
4	Extremely many students with very high average quiz score, little many video views and little little few times doing quizzes obtain extremely high mid-term score	1.0
5	Extremely many students with extremely many times of doing exercises, extremely high average quiz score and little little few times of doing quizzes obtain extremely high mid-term score	1.0
	Final exam score’s attribute as summarizer
6	Extremely many students with many times in direct learning class, little many times doing exercises, little few video views and little little few times doing quizzes obtain low final exam score	1.0
7	Extremely many students with little few times of doing exercises, little little few video views and little little short video-watching time obtain little low final exam score	1.0
8	Extremely many students with little very few times doing quizzes, little very many times of doing exercises high average quiz score and very little many video views obtain medium final exam score	1.0
9	Many students with very high quiz score, very many times in direct learning class, very little many video views and little little few times doing quizzes obtain medium final exam score	1.0
10	Extremely many students with little little many times of doing quizzes, extremely many times in direct learning classes and very very high average quiz score obtain little high final exam score	1.0
	Course final score’s attribute as a summarizer
11	Rather very many students with very very few slide views, extremely many times doing exercises and very very high average quiz score obtain high course final score	1.0
12	Very many students with medium times of doing quizzes, medium video-watching time, very high average quiz score and very little many video views obtain high course final score	1.0
13	Extremely many students with medium video-watching time, many slide views and very many times of doing exercises obtain high course final score	1.0
14	Extremely many students with few slide views, little many video views, many times in direct learning class and very very many times doing exercises obtain medium course final score	1.0
15	Extremely many students with few video views, few times doing exercises and low average quiz score obtain medium course final score	1.0

. The same is true in Table 4; only the linguistic summaries with a truth value of 1.0 are put into Table 5.

As we can see in part 1 of Table 5, the linguistic summaries shown in rows 1, 2, and 3 indicate that the extremely high average quiz scores and many times in direct learning classes are the important factors in helping extremely many students obtain very high mid-term scores; combining the short average practice time in the rows 1, 4, and 5 with few times of doing practice and long average practice time in row 3, we can see that if the average practice time is short, then the number of times doing practice should be many. Whereas, if the number of times doing practice is few, the average practice time should be long.

By analyzing the second part of Table 5, we found that high quiz scores and high practice scores are the factors that make many students obtain very high final exam scores. With the linguistic words few and short, the number of times doing practice, quizzes, quiz time, and practice time is not an important factor contributing to obtaining a high final exam score. This is also true for the video and slide views. Based on those analyses, we can state that there may be some problems with the final exam results because students did not actively take part in learning activities; they still obtained high final exam scores (rows 6 and 7). Thus, educators and lecturers need to take some action to find out the causes of the problems.

Based on the linguistic summaries shown in the last part of Table 5, very many students who have a long average practice time or little long total practice time and obtain high average practice scores, high self-learning scores, or extremely high mid-term scores obtain extremely high course final scores. In addition, the number of times practice is only a few, so long practice is efficient. Many students who have few times doing quizzes and short average quiz times or short total quiz times obtain very high course final scores. This indicates that short quiz time is efficient, so the number of quizzes is only a few.

In summary, based on the linguistic summaries shown in Table 5, we need to consider that there may be some problems with exam scores that we need to find out. For example, the mid-term tests and/or final exams can be very easy so that students can easily obtain good scores. It is clear that the learning outcomes of a course depend much on the learning activities, such as doing practice, quiz time, and self-learning. In general, a set of extracted summary sentences in the form of linguistic rules can express the learning activities of students and the activity relations in relation to students’ learning outcomes. It also reflects diverse groups of students at different levels of behavior. Thus, those linguistic rules can help students adjust and choose their suitable learning activities or suitable learning styles to achieve better learning outcomes. Moreover, they also help lecturers and educators discover the shortcomings in the curriculum and teaching activities so that they can adjust them to find an efficient way to improve the learning outcomes of students.

4.3.3. Extraction of Linguistic Summaries Expressing Outliers

The extracted linguistic summaries expressing exceptional cases or outliers of both learning courses are shown in

Table 6. Linguistic summaries expressing outliers.

No.	Discrete Mathematics
	Linguistic Summary	Truth Value
1	Extremely few students with very high average quiz scores, little many video views and little little few times doing quizzes obtain an extremely low mid-term score	1.0
2	Extremely few students with extremely many times doing exercises, many slide views and very high average quiz score obtain extremely low mid-term score	1.0
3	Extremely few students with little little few video views, very little low average quiz score, extremely few slide views and extremely few times doing quizzes obtain low mid-term score	1.0
4	Extremely few students with extremely many times doing exercises, very high quiz score, very very many times in direct learning classes, little little many video views and high mid-term score obtain little low final exam score	1.0
5	Extremely few students with little little low average quiz score, few video views and little few slide views obtain high final exam score	1.0
6	Extremely few students with little many times doing quizzes, extremely high max quiz score and little very high average quiz score obtain high final exam score	1.0
7	Extremely few students with very very few slide views, extremely many times doing exercises and very very high average quiz score obtain low course final score	1.0
8	Extremely few students with medium video-watching time, medium times doing quizzes, very high average quiz score and very little many video views obtain low course final score	1.0
9	Extremely few students with medium video-watching time, many slide views and very many times doing exercises obtain low course final score	1.0
	Introduction to Computer Science
10	Extremely few students with high mid-term score, very little high average quiz score, very very few times doing practice and few times doing quizzes obtain extremely high final exam score	1.0
11	Extremely few students with very little long total practice time, extremely short total quiz time, few times doing quizzes and very short average quiz time obtain high final exam score	1.0
12	Extremely few students with very very few video views, very little long average practice time, high self-learning score and extremely high average practice score obtain extremely low final exam score	1.0
13	Extremely few students with very few times doing practices, very very high average practice score, extremely high self-learning score and long average practice time obtain extremely low final exam score	1.0
14	Extremely few students with little high self-learning score, extremely high mid-term score, extremely short total quiz time and very long total practice time obtain extremely low final exam score	1.0
15	Extremely few students with extremely high mid-term score, very few times doing quizzes, extr. many times in direct learning classes and little long total practice time obtain extremely low final exam score	1.0

. We can see that most outliers express the cases that although the student’s learning activities in the learning processes are remarkable, their exam scores or learning outcomes are poor and not suitable to their activity’s endeavors. The linguistic summaries, which have significant attention, are in rows 5 and 6 of the table. The linguistic summary in row 5 shows that extremely few students with trivial (low and few) learning activity participation (quizzes, videos, slides) achieve high final exam scores. It provides educators with valuable insights into student engagement and performance patterns. In practical aspects, it highlights the importance of continuous participation throughout the course, suggesting that students who engage minimally with the course activities are unlikely to achieve high scores on the final exam. This can suggest to educators that they should have their early intervention to encourage participation. Moreover, it represents an exceptional case that deviates from common student performance patterns, and it has practical significance for educators as follows:

-

Students have exceptional learning strategies: It may indicate that some students have good learning outcomes despite minimal engagement, possibly due to alternative study methods, prior knowledge, or external resources. Therefore, educators can explore those strategies and consider integrating them into the course design and try to apply them to the next learning courses.

-

There may be some curriculum gaps or limitations: In case a student achieves a high final exam score without participating much in the course activities, it might suggest that the course assessments do not fully reflect engagement-based learning, signaling a need to redesign the course’s curriculum.

-

Students have personalized learning abilities: Educators can investigate whether exceptional students have different backgrounds, learning preferences, or unique cognitive abilities. Understanding these factors may help them with tailoring support for diverse learners.

The linguistic summary in row 6 shows that the final exam scores are remarkable (high) and consistent with the student’s learning activities. However, the quantifier words in this sentence are extremely few. This means that very few students with remarkable learning activities obtain high final exam scores. It also means that extremely many students with remarkable learning activities obtain low final exam scores. Therefore, this linguistic summary suggests an interesting, possibly anomalous pattern in student performance. The practical significance of this observation for educators includes the following:

-

There may be assessment misalignment: If students achieve a high maximum quiz score but struggle in the final exam, it could indicate that the quizzes do not accurately reflect the depth of knowledge required for the exam. It means that some quizzes are too easy. Therefore, educators need to review quiz difficulty and consistency to align quizzes more closely with final assessment expectations.

-

Domination of memorization rather than deep understanding: Frequent quiz attempts and high scores might indicate that students rely on memorization rather than deep comprehension. This could signal a need to redesign quizzes to incorporate more critical thinking and problem-solving questions.

-

Students may face difficulties in exam conditions: Students may excel in quizzes, which are often in lower difficulty levels, but struggle in high-pressure exam environments. Educators might consider strategies to reduce stress or use alternative assessment methods to support students in achieving better learning outcomes.

-

Students may face test-taking challenges: Test anxiety, fatigue, and unfamiliarity with the exam format can be difficulties that students may face. Educators can consider offering practice exams or techniques to help students transition from quiz success to exam success.

Therefore, there must be a problem of learning and teaching quality that educators should consider and find out.

There is no outlier extracted in case the mid-term score’s attribute of the dataset of Introduction to Computer Science is selected as the summarizer. It shows that there may not be any abnormality in this case.

To validate the linguistic summaries expressing outliers, the functions H and L proposed in [9] can be used to calculate the distance of two linguistic words and the similarity of two linguistic summaries, respectively. For example, the words in the linguistic domain of the linguistic variable are {“extremely few”, “very very few”, “very few”, “little very few”, “few”, “little little few”, “little few”, “very little few”, “medium”, “very little many”, “little many”, “little little many”, “many”, “little very many”, “very many”, “very very many”, “extremely many”}, so the number of words is 17. The linguistic summary expressing common rule “Extremely many students with very high average quiz score, little many video views and little little few times doing quizzes obtain extremely high mid-term score” and the linguistic summary expressing an outlier “Extremely few students with very high average quiz score, little many video views and little little few times doing quizzes obtain extremely low mid-term score” have the semantic distance value of both the quantifier and the summarizer of |1 − 17| = 16 > round(0.2 × 17) = 3. Therefore, the value of the function L expressing the similarity between the normal linguistic summary and the outlier is No. Do similar calculations; all outliers shown in Table 6 have the values of the similarity function between them, and their corresponding normal linguistic summaries are No.

In summary, outliers mainly occur from unsuitable learning activities and unsuitable styles of students and from an inappropriate curriculum. Based on the outliers, students can notice their inconsistent points during the learning process to make timely adjustments. Lecturers and educators can identify the tangible shortcomings in the curriculum and teaching activities and plan for improvement. Moreover, they can detect cheating by students on the tests and exams based on the questionable linguistic summaries in outliers. Based on the results of the methodology examination, the LMS plug-in application platform will be developed in the next stage.

5. Conclusions

Algorithm models of the linguistic summarization of data provide us with the discovered knowledge represented by summary sentences in natural language. This kind of knowledge is easy to understand for people. The blended learning format is now popular in higher education at both undergraduate and graduate levels. A lot of techniques in machine learning, such as classification, regression, clustering, and forecasting, have been applied to discover learning styles, evaluate learning performance, and predict the learning outcomes of students. However, few studies have been examined to transform the data of blended learning courses into the knowledge represented as linguistic summaries. This paper presents the application of an interpretable linguistic data summarization algorithm model to extract compact sets of linguistic summaries from data from blended learning courses collected from a learning management system. A method of detecting exceptional cases or outliers based on a set of linguistic summaries expressing common rules is proposed. The experiments were carried out on two real-world datasets of blended learning courses, and the experimental results have shown the practical application of the proposed methods. Based on the contents of extracted linguistic summaries, university educators and lecturers can evaluate the learning activities during the learning courses to find any abnormal cases so that they can help students adjust and choose suitable learning styles to improve their learning results.