Random forest application on cognitive level classification of E-learning content

International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE)
Vol. 10, No. 4, August 2020, pp. 4372~4380
ISSN: 2088-8708, DOI: 10.11591/ijece.v10i4.pp4372-4380  4372
Journal homepage: http://ijece.iaescore.com/index.php/IJECE
Random forest application on cognitive level classification
of E-learning content
Benny Thomas, Chandra J.
Department of Computer Science, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), India
Article Info ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received Dec 19, 2019
Revised Mar 3, 2020
Accepted Mar 14, 2020
The e-learning is the primary method of learning for most learners
after the regular academics studies. The knowledge delivery through
E-learning technologies increased exponentially over the years because of
the advancement in internet and e-learning technologies. Knowledge delivery
to some people would never have been possible without the e-learning
technologies. Most of the working professional do focused studies for carrier
advancement, promotion or to improve the domain knowledge. These learner
can find many free e-learning web sites from the internet easily in the domain
of interest. However it is quite difficult to find the best e-learning content
suitable for their learning based on their domain knowledge level. User spent
most of the time figuring out the right content from a plethora of available
content and end up learning nothing. An intelligent framework using
machine learning algorithms with random forest Classifier is proposed to
address this issue, which classifies the e-learning content based on its
difficulty levels and provide the learner the best content suitable based on
the knowledge level .The frame work is trained with the data set collected
from multiple popular e-learning web sites. The model is tested with real
time e-learning web sites links and found that the e-contents in the web sites
are recommended to the user based on its difficulty levels as beginner level,
intermediate level and advanced level.
Keywords:
Blooms taxonomy
Difficulty level
E-learning
Machine learning
Random forest classifier
Copyright © 2020 Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science.
All rights reserved.
Corresponding Author:
Benny Thomas,
Department of Computer Science,
CHRIST (Deemed to be University), India.
Email: benny.thomas@res.christuniversity.in
1. INTRODUCTION
E-learning is a popular learning method with the help of internet and other e-learning technologies.
It bridges the geographical gap between the learner and teacher. E-learning become popular with
the advancement in e-learning technologies and the availability of world class e-learning web sites. Currently
it is the primary method of learning for most of the working professional and entrepreneurs. E-learning gives
us the choice and flexibility to learn from anywhere and at any time. Because of its wider usage and
potentiality, the e-learning web sites increased exponentially over the years. It is easy for any learners to find
multiple e-learning web sites needed for their domain. However because of the availability of many web
sites, the user most of the time get overwhelmed with the magnitude of content availability and find it
difficult to understand and choose the right learning content. User spent most of the time trying to figure out
the content to be chosen and end up learning nothing significant to improve the knowledge. This situation can
be managed by providing intelligent content recommendations based on the domain knowledge level of
the user which helps to find the right learning content. Different approaches were used to address this issue.
Some of the methods used are recommended systems, good learners rating, association rule mining, learner
grouping, item set mining etc.

Int J Elec & Comp Eng ISSN: 2088-8708 
Random forest application on cognitive level classification of e-learning content (Benny Thomas)
4373
Recommended systems are the most popular method used to suggest eLearning content to the user.
Ontology based and fuzzy rule based systems are popular content based recommendation system used in
eLearning [1]. Commonly used recommended systems are collaborative filtering based systems, hybrid
filtering systems and content based filtering systems [2]. Content based filtering uses previously studied
learners’ rating. It can bring additional similar learning material based on good learner’s recommendations.
Collaborative filtering approach brings similar learners materials to recommend to the user. A mix of content
filtering and collaborative filtering methods are used in Hybrid filtering [3]. These system does not classify
contents based on the knowledge levels of the user. An intelligent e-learning framework is proposed
to identify the cognitive level of e-content available in various e-learning web sites. The data set needed for
this is collected through web scrapping of popular e-learning web sites. The web pages are downloaded and
scraped as text files to collect the dataset. Random forest classification algorithm is used to classify the text
based on difficulty levels.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Numerous studies have conducted to recommend the best e-learning content to the learner through
various text classification methods. Atorn Nuntiyagul el. al., categorize questions kept in an item bank and
reestablish it based on difficulty levels by using patterned keywords and phrase with support vector machine
algorithms. Inputs are given as mathematical questions in text format. The selected keyword patterns and
weights are combined and applied to vector space model as a feature matrix. The methodology takes
the advantage of text classification techniques in machine learning and information retrieval [4].
G. Desai et.al., proposed that the Naive Bayes approach is one of the best method for text classification and it
yields good results. It uses statistical and supervised learning methods. The methodology used is random
sampling of the labeled categories of text. It explains the automatic classification of research topics based on
the result analysis and textual content [5]. Sankar Perumal et. al., Proposed a new content based
recommender system to provide appropriate contents by filtering the frequent item patterns obtaining through
pattern mining and then ordering the final contents using fuzzy logic into different levels. It has higher
efficiency and accuracy compared to the other parallel methods [1]. Tarus and Niu has conducted study to
understand the different ontology based e-learning recommended systems which demonstrated ontology for
representing knowledge that brought enhancement in the recommendations.
The methodology used is survey of the e-learning recommended systems and compared and
analyzed the results of various ontology based recommended systems. The ontology-based systems uses
hybrid recommendation systems and knowledge-based techniques and other approaches such as content-
based filtering, collaborative filtering, fuzzy-based context-aware and trust-based techniques [6]. Shuai et. al.,
provide extensive review of the researches in deep learning recommended systems and devised
a nomenclature for deep learning based recommended models. Also proposed an organization scheme for
classifying and clustering existing works with advantages and disadvantages of using deep learning based
recommended systems [7]. Dragi Kocev et.al has done an experimental evaluation of Multi label learning
methods by selecting competent methods and using data set from different domains and based on
the previous usage statistics. Multi label learning is learning by examples. The results are experimentally
analyzed and found that the best performing methods are random forests of predictive clustering trees and
hierarchy of multi-label classifier [8]. Salem et. al., suggested an automatic meta-learning recommendation
model which extract learning contents from knowledge units as teaching notes using Natural Language
Processing techniques. NLP helps to extract the verbs based on the cognitive levels. It describes the use of
Blooms taxonomy for computer science domain [9]. Amal et. al., provided a graph based Tringluarity system
for knowledge unit identification and classification using Bloom’s taxonomy levels. When a knowledge unit
is given the system finds out the hidden association in the knowledge unit using Tringluarity graph.
This model can be used to give the new sequential ordering of knowledge units in a textbook [10].
Colin et. al., suggest that the existing learning taxonomies are not useful for practical oriented subjects such
as computer programming and devised a new taxonomy for programming.
A two dimensional approach of Bloom’s taxonomy called Matrix Taxonomy is proposed to provide
more practical framework to assess the learner. The two dimensions are divided as producing and interpreting
which removes the strict ordering and retain the Blooms concepts [11]. Othman et. al., uses Naïve base
classifier method to identify Bloom’s taxonomy levels in text based on rule set in training data. The concept
can be used to order a text book using Blooms Taxonomy cognitive levels and give a new sequential ordering
to the book. The results shows that the several parts of the book which are described as intermediate become
advanced and some advanced topics become intermediate [12]. Yahyaa et. al., analyzed the difficulty levels
of questions asked in class during teaching, using Bloom Taxonomy verbs. The classification is done based
on its difficulty levels using Bloom levels with K-NN, Naïve Bayses and SVM algorithms using term

 ISSN: 2088-8708
Int J Elec & Comp Eng, Vol. 10, No. 4, August 2020 : 4372 - 4380
4374
frequency as the selection criteria. It uses four stages such as text representation, selection, classifier
construction and testing the classifier [13]. Yamaguchi et. al., has developed personalized English teaching
material for beginner level learners which identifies the cognitive level of a text document content.
The difficulty level is identified by the personalized vocabulary of the learner. The learning materials are
recommended based on the vocabulary knowledge of the students. The number of unknown words estimate
the difficulty level of the content. The research has relevance today because of the exponential growth of
e-learning content availability in the web [14]. Yahya and Osman identified difficulty levels using support
vector machine algorithms for question paper categorization based on difficulty levels. Already
categorized questions are gathered and support vector machine classifier is applied on these questions for
classification [15]. Yang et. al., proposed a method to apply teaching and learning to learners from diverse
background effectively using item response theory. The approach uses web document classification by
introducing the concept of knowledge unit obtained from the subject. The questions are developed to measure
and analyze them using item response theory. The learners are assessed through self-assessment based on
the subject and user’s knowledge level the sub topics of the subject. Based on this, the students are divided in
to different groups to learn from the web [16].
3. RESEARCH METHOD
Dataset is collected from popular e-learning websites through web scraping. The contents were
dived in to three different difficulty levels namely beginner, intermediate and advanced. The difficulty level
is identified before downloading the e-content by reading each page of the e-content in the website.
Each page is parsed to produce the text file for further processing. The dataset with varying dimensions are
created to check the robustness of the algorithm at different dimensionalities. The data set is divided in to
three sizes, 600 files, 2100 files and 4000 files to check the performance as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Description of the datasets used to test the model
Total Files in each dataset Beginner files Intermediate files Advanced files Training files Testing files
600 200 200 200 150 50
2100 700 700 700 525 175
4000 1800 900 1300 3000 1000
3.1. Block diagram
Figure 1 shows the work flow of the proposed framework. Figure 2 show generic architecture of
the proposed framework. The content obtained through web crawling is loaded in to the framework. After
preprocessing and data reduction, bloom taxonomy verbs and its synonyms were added to the selected feature
set to improve the accuracy of the classifier. The random forest classier is used to train and test the model.
The model is validated using the e-learning web pages from different e-learning web sites. Finally,
the eLearning content is recommended to the learner based the domain knowledge of the learner.
Figure 1. Work flow diagram of the classification

4375
Figure 2. Generic architecture of the proposed framework
3.2. Preprocessing
Pre-processing minimize noise in the dataset by removing the unrelated and irrelevant data from
the document. It removes all the tab spaces, punctuations, one letter words, two letter words, numeric strings
and stop words. All the letters in the documents are converted to lower case and all words with two letters are
removed from the document. The document is divided into flat array of words after removing metadata elements.
3.3. Feature extraction
The size of the document obtained after preprocessing is further reduced through feature extraction
methods. The number and frequency of unique words in the feature set is obtained and all the duplicate
words are removed to reduce the size of the data. The feature size is further reduced using feature selection
methods by removing less important features and taking only relevant percentage of the total feature set.
This percentage is calculated using N-Fold cross validation as follows. The N-Fold cross validation is done
by taking 15 to 75 percentage of the total feature set.
n = (Total No.of Features*percentage)/100) (1)
Feature = words [0: n], Where percentage is an integer value less than 100 .The different percentage value of
the total feature set is calculated to find the best percentage of feature selection. The data size percentage
between 15 and 25 is giving the best accuracy and it reduced the data size further by 75 to 85 percentage.
The documents after preprocessing is divided into training and testing. 75 percentage of the data is used for
training and remaining 25 is used for testing. The best training and testing percentage is calculated
using N-Fold validation with varying training and testing data size percentage such as 65-35, 70-30,
75-25 ,80-20 and 85-15.
3.4. Bloom’s taxonomy
Bloom taxonomy helps to divide a learning content in to different cognitive levels based on
the difficulty level of the learning content [17]. Bloom Taxonomy is hierarchical, learning at the higher level
depends on having attained sufficient knowledge in the lower level. Before understanding a concept, one
must remember it. In order to apply a concept, one must first understand it. The concept should be evaluated
before analyzing it. To create a concept/product, it must be thoroughly evaluated. Different levels are:
 Remembering-lowest level
 Understanding-lowest level
 Applying-Intermediate level
 Analyzing-Intermediate level
 Evaluating-Advanced level
 Creating-Advanced level
Bloom’s taxonomy helps to identify the difficulty level of the content with the help of different
verbs used in each context [18]. The Bloom’s taxonomy verbs are added to the feature set obtained after data
reduction. The synonyms of each of these verbs are extracted using WordNet from NLTK took kit.
The Bloom’s synonyms are also added to the feature set. This helps to improve the performance of
the classification algorithm and to predict the classes in which the document belong [19].

 ISSN: 2088-8708
4376
3.5. Machine learning
The machine learning algorithm is used to train the machine with the model created with the help of
different e-learning documents. In Machine learning, training is done using the fit method, the system is able
to automatically understand difficulty levels of contents passed through using classification algorithms [20, 21].
The random forest machine learning algorithms is used for training the model after comparing many other
algorithms on the data set [22]. The accuracy of the random forest classifier is found to be the highest in
comparison with other algorithms.
3.6. Random forest classifier
Random forest belongs to ensemble family of classifiers as shown in Figure 3. It consist of number
of random decision trees. It recursively generate many binary decision trees from a bagged random set of
data. Each tree is independent from the other and it is constructed from a bootstrap sample of training
data [23]. The trees in the random forest is constructed by an addition of randomness and therefore algorithm
is named as random forest [24]. The data which is left without any decision tree is called the out of bag data
and it is used for testing the performance of the decision tree. It uses feature selection method and feature
ranking based on the importance of a feature in the overall dataset. The accuracy and robustness of the RF is
very high. Its main advantages are its power to handle over-fitting and missing data [25] as well as its
capacity to handle large datasets without eliminating the variables in the feature selection and resilience to
high dimensionality data, insensitivity to noise, and resistance to over fitting. The trees in forest gives out
a prediction result and the class which has more voting is taken as the model prediction value.
Figure 3. Generic architecture of random forest classifier
Random forest consist of a collection of randomized regression trees
𝑅 𝑁(𝑋, 𝐾 𝑀,
, 𝐷 𝑁 ),𝑀≥1 (2)
Where K1, k2, are independently distributed random variable [24]. The Random trees are combined to form
aggregate estimate of regression.
𝑅 𝑁(𝑋, 𝐷 𝑁) = 𝐸 𝐾[𝑅 𝑁(𝑋, 𝐾, 𝐷 𝑁)] (3)
Where 𝐸 𝐾 is the expectation with respect to the random parameter on X and the data set 𝐷 𝑁. the RF get
the most important features from the feature set to construct the decision trees. RF chooses the best fit using
the gini index.
gini(ar) = 1- ∑[𝑃𝑗]2
(4)
𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑖 𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑡
= ∑
𝑛 𝑎𝑟
𝑛
𝑛
𝑎𝑟=1
𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑖(𝑎𝑟) (5)

4377
Where Pj is the frequency of the feature set (ar) at class J, 𝑛 𝑎𝑟 is the number of randomly selected training
records. Each tree in the random forest output prediction value and the class with more vote is taken as
the prediction value. The six Blooms’ taxonomy classes are condensed into three classes with three difficulty
levels. The Random forest classifier performance is improved with the addition of Blooms verbs and its
synonyms into the feature set as RF internally use Gini index to select the best features and Gini index look
for the most frequently occurring features from the feature set [25]. As the Blooms features are abundant in
e-learning content, it improves the performance of the classifier.
4. IMPLEMENTATION
The algorithm is made to run with different data size to understand the best performance and to
identify the optimum data size percentage required. This is accomplished with the help of N-Cap cross
validation. The optimum data performance is obtained at 8 percentage to 15 percentage of data size.
Table 2 and Figure 4 shows the accuracy, training time and testing time of Random forest classifier on
the data set with different dimensionality of the data set. 8 to 14 percentage of the total data is used for testing
the model after N-fold cross validation.
Table 2. Random forest classifier run with 600 files with 8 to 14% feature selection
Dimensionality in Percentage Time needed to Train Time needed to Test Accuracy
8 0,171s 0,017s 0,986
9 0,171s 0,017s 0,990
10 0,155s 0,017s 0,986
11 0,1712s 0,017s 0,986
12 0,171s 0,017s 0,986
13 0,186s 0,017s 0,990
14 0,187s 0,017s 0,918
Figure 4. Result of random forest classifier run with different data size
The algorithm is made to run again after applying Bloom’s Taxonomy verbs and all its synonyms
into the feature set using WordNet from NLTK tool kit. The accuracy of the algorithm is improved further
with the addition of Bloom’s Taxonomy verbs and synonyms. The accuracy, training time and testing time of
the classifier with bloom taxonomy verbs in the feature set is shown in the Table 3 and Figure 5. These
values increased with the addition of Blooms verbs in the feature set.
Table 3. Random forest classifier run using 600 files with 8 to 14%
feature selection using bloom’s taxonomy verbs and synonyms
Dimensionality in Percentage Time needed to Train Time needed to Test Accuracy
8 0,282s 0,000s 0,983
9 0,264s 0,017s 0,992
10 0,266s 0,017s 0,992
11 0,281s 0,017s 0,992
12 0,295s 0,017s 0,992
13 0,344s 0,017s 0,992
14 0,297s 0,017s 0,992

 ISSN: 2088-8708
4378
Figure 5. Random forest classifier run with different data size with bloom’s taxonomy verbs and synonyms
4.1. Recommendation
The trained model is saved and validated on real data using many web sites links from popular
e-learning web sites, The web pages from e-learning web sites are passed to the Framework. The classifier
divides the e-learning content from multiple websites in to three different difficulty levels and recommended
to the user as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Recommendation of e-learning content using trained Framework based on difficulty levels
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Random forest classifier is used for developing the intelligent framework to assess the difficulty
level of the e-content in multiple websites. The framework can be used to recommend right learning content
to a learner based on the domain knowledge level. The model is trained with data sets of varying size using
different percentage of feature selection. The model is test with N-Fold cross validation to obtain the best
accuracy. The trained model is tested with different percentage of test data set to ensure the accuracy before
saving the final model. The saved model is tested with real time web site links and found that the values
obtained are correct. The output is validated using the link and check the actual data in the web sites and
found that the difficulty levels are predicted with accuracy. The output of the classifier show in Figure 7.
URL Subject Topic Difficulty Level
https://www.w3schools.com/java/java_booleans.asp java Booleans beginner
https://www.w3schools.com/java/java_arraylist.asp java ArrayList intermediate
https://www.w3schools.com/java/java_break.asp java Break and Continue beginner
https://www.w3schools.com/java/java_comments.asp java Java Comments beginner
https://www.w3schools.com/java/java_constructors.asp java Constructors beginner
https://www.w3schools.com/java/java_data_types.asp java Data Types beginner
https://www.w3schools.com/java/java_date.asp java Date and Time intermediate
https://www.javatpoint.com/InetAddress-class java Java InetAddress advanced
Figure 7. The output of the classifier using e-learning content from websites with different difficulty levels

4379
6. CONCLUSION
The number of e-learning web sites and the users of these web sites increased dramatically over
the years because of the advancement in internet and e-learning web sites. The e-content availably is so much
that the user often found it hard to figure out the right content. This leads to the necessity of an intelligent
solution to recommend the right e-learning content to the user. The proposed framework uses a Random
forest Classifier to develop a trained model. The model is used to classify the e-learning content in web sites
based on its difficulty levels. The framework is useful to find the exact learning content from a large
collection of content from the web site based on the knowledge level of the user.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Pariserum Perumal, G. Sannasi, and K. Arputharaj, “An intelligent fuzzy rule-based e-learning recommendation
system for dynamic user interests,” J. Supercomput., vol. 75, pp. 5145-5160, 2019.
[2] G. Geetha, M. Safa, C. Fancy, and D. Saranya, “A Hybrid Approach using Collaborative filtering and Content
based Filtering for Recommender System,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1000, no. 1, 2018.
[3] K. I. Ghauth and N. A. Abdullah, “Learning materials recommendation using good learners’ ratings and content-
based filtering,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 711–727, 2010.
[4] A. Nuntiyagul, K. Naruedomkul, N. Cercone, and D. Wongsawang, “Adaptable learning assistant for item bank
management,” Comput. Educ., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 357–370, 2008.
[5] M. K. M, S. D. H, P. G. Desai, and N. Chiplunkar, “Text Mining Approach to Classify Technical Research
Documents using Naïve Bayes,” vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 386–391, 2015.
[6] J. K. Tarus, Z. Niu, and G. Mustafa, “Knowledge-based recommendation: a review of ontology-based
recommender systems for e-learning,” Artif. Intell. Rev., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 21–48, 2018.
[7] S. Zhang, L. Yao, A. Sun, and Y. I. Tay, “Deep Learning Based Recommender System : A Survey,” ACM Journals,
vol. 52, no. 1, 2019.
[8] G. Madjarov, D. Kocev, D. Gjorgjevikj, and S. Džeroski, “An extensive experimental comparison of methods for
multi-label learning,” Pattern Recognit., vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 3084–3104, 2012.
[9] F. Nafa, J. I. Khan, and S. Othman, “Extending cognitive skill classification of common verbs in the domain of
computer science for algorithms knowledge units,” CSEDU 2017 - Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Comput. Support. Educ.,
vol. 1, no. Csedu, pp. 173–183, 2017.
[10] F. Nafa, J. I. Khan, S. Othman, and A. Babour, “Mining cognitive skills levels of knowledge units in text using
graph tringluarity mining,” Proc. - 2016 IEEE/WIC/ACM Int. Conf. Web Intell. Work. WIW 2016, pp. 1–4, 2017.
[11] U. Fuller et al., “Developing a computer science-specific learning taxonomy,” ITiCSE-WGR 2007 - Work. Gr.
Reports ITiCSE Innov. Technol. Comput. Sci. Educ., pp. 152–170, 2007.
[12] F. Nafa, S. Othman, and J. Khan, “Automatic concepts classification based on bloom’s taxonomy using text
analysis and the Naïve Bayes Classifier Method,” CSEDU 2016 - Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Comput. Support. Educ.,
vol. 1, no. Csedu, pp. 391–396, 2016.
[13] A. A. Yahya, A. Osman, A. Taleb, and A. A. Alattab, “Analyzing the Cognitive Level of Classroom Questions
Using Machine Learning Techniques,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 97, pp. 587–595, 2013.
[14] I. Horie, K. Yamaguchi, K. Kashiwabara and Y. Matsuda, “Improvement of difficulty estimation of personalized
teaching material generator by JACET,” 2014 Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training
(ITHET), York, pp. 1-8, 2014.
[15] A. A. Yahya and A. Osman, “Automatic Classification of Questions Into Bloom’s Cognitive Levels Using Support
Vector Machine,” Proc. Int. Arab Conf. Inf. Technol, pp. 1–6, 2011.
[16] K. M. Yang, R. J. Ross, and S. B. Kim, “Constructing different learning paths through e-learning,” Int. Conf. Inf.
Technol. Coding Comput. ITCC, vol. 1, pp. 447–452, 2005.
[17] F. Nafa and J. Khan, “Conceptualize the domain knowledge space in the light of cognitive skills,” CSEDU 2015 -
7th Int. Conf. Comput. Support. Educ. Proc., vol. 1, pp. 285–295, 2015.
[18] Anderson, L. W, & Krathwohl, D. R. “Bloom ’ s Taxonomy Action Verbs,” 2001.
[19] B. Thomas, “The Effect of Bloom’s Taxonomy on Random Forest Classifier for cognitive level identification of
E-content,” EasyChair The world for scientists, pp. 1–6, 2020.
[20] K. Kowsari, K. J. Meimandi, M. Heidarysafa, S. Mendu, L. Barnes, and D. Brown, “Text classification algorithms:
A survey-Good,” Inf., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1–68, 2019.
[21] C. C. Aggarwal and C. X. Zhai, “A survey of text classification algorithms,” Min. Text Data, vol. 9781461432,
pp. 163–222, 2012.
[22] D. C. J. Mr. Benny Thomas, “Machine learning based Text document classification for e-learningt,” Int. J. Recent
Technol. Eng., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1–9, 2019.
[23] D. Grissa, et al., “Feature selection methods for early predictive biomarker discovery using untargeted metabolomic
data,” Front. Mol. Biosci., vol. 3, no. 30, pp. 1–15, 2016.
[24] P. Biau, “Analysis of a Random Forests Model G´erard,” Anaesthesiol. Intensive Ther., vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 373–381, 2017.
[25] B. H. Menze et al., “A comparison of random forest and its Gini importance with standard chemometric methods
for the feature selection and classification of spectral data,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 10, pp. 1-16, 2009

 ISSN: 2088-8708
4380
BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS
Mr. Benny Thomas research scholar from the Christ (Deemed to be University) Bangalore, has
completed his MPhil in Computer science from Madurai Kamaraj University. Worked in industry in
different roles such as software developer, trainer, and training manager. His research interests are
Artificial Intelligence, Big data, Data Analytics and Deep Learning Neural Networks.
Dr. Chandra J. Associate Professor from Department of Computer Science; CHRIST (Deemed to
be University) holds a Masters in Computer Applications from Bharathidasan University. PhD from
Hindustan University. Her research interests include Artificial Neural Network, Data Mining,
Genetic algorithm, Big data analytics, Deep learning, and Convolutional Neural Networks Predictive
analytics. And Medical Image Processing.

Random forest application on cognitive level classification of E-learning content

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot (14)

Similar to Random forest application on cognitive level classification of E-learning content (20)

More from IJECEIAES (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Random forest application on cognitive level classification of E-learning content