MIPRO 2014, 26-30 May 2014, Opatija, Croatia
Determining the impact of demographic features
in predicting student success in Croatia
Bruno Trstenjak*, Dženana **
*Medimurje University of Applied Sciences in Cakovec/Dept. of Computer Engineering, Cakovec, Croatia
**Faculty of Electrical Engineering/Dept. of Computer Science,Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
btrstenjak@mev.hr; ddonko@etf.unsa.ba
Predicting the success of students is a topic which has been
studied for a long time in different scientific fields.
Evaluation of importance of the features used in the
prediction and their subsequent selection is an immensely
important step in the process of classification and data
mining. This paper presents a study on the importance of
student demographic features in the process of predicting.
The study and performed analyses used the demographic
data collected from the Information System for Higher
Education (ISVU). For determining the importance of
demographic features in the study the following methods
have been used: Information Gain (IG), Gain Ratio (GR),
Sequential Backward Selection (SBS), Sequential Forward
Selection (SFS). The results show the features rank, their
importance weight in the prediction and comparison of the
results and the use of different methods. Two classification
algorithms for evaluating the impact of ranking features to
the quality of prediction are used: Naive Bayes i Support
Vector Machine (SVM). Final results provide guidelines for
the development of a new prediction model.
I. INTRODUCTION
Predicting the success of students has long been a
topic which is being studied in various scientific
communities. So far they have conducted various studies
and analyses related to success in learning, finding the
answer to the question how to achieve better results, and
the relation regarding student properties and their impact
on studying success. Predicting the success of students is
closely associated with the concept of data mining and
machine learning. In the research various techniques of
learning and classification algorithms were used [1],[2].
Demographic data are an integral part of each
classification that includes information about people,
users, students, etc. For the purposes of the research in this
article, we used Information System of Higher Education
Institutions (ISVU), the data from Medimurje University
of Applied Sciences in Cakovec, Croatia.
Data mining and machine learning are the scientific
fields in which the concept of prediction has been
explored, various algorithms have been developed in order
to achieve better prediction accuracy [3],[4]. When
mentioning prediction, it primarily refers to classification
of data to determine their membership depending on their
features. If the prediction is determined on the basis of
input data and achieved results, then we are taking about
Supervised Learning [5].
The amount of data, the number of features, data
dimensions, vary depending on the prediction purpose.
Multi-dimensionality of data and large number of features
increase the complexity of algorithms which use in
1222
prediction and has an influence on the extension of time
for prediction and consumption computer resources. Due
to the large number of features that are included in the
prediction model and to accelerate the prediction process,
some models use algorithms to determine the importance
of individual features for the final score prediction. In
order to achieve better performance of prediction, it is
necessary to pre-process the data. Pre-processing is the
process of preparing the data before it is sent to the model
of prediction, transforming data suitable for the prediction
model. Data pre-processing methods are divided into four
activities: data cleaning, data integration, data
transformation and data reduction. Data reduction refers to
reducing the number of dimensions and features,
determining the subset of features [6],[7]. Feature subset
selection is the process of identifying and removing
irrelevant and redundant information.
Generally, selection algorithms are distinguished
between filter algorithms and wrapper algorithms [8],[9].
In evaluation filter algorithm only considers data
reduction but does not take into account feature activities.
Filters ranked features based on certain statistical criteria.
Features with highest ranking values are selected on a
subset. In the wrapper approach, feature selection is
“wrapped” in a learning algorithm. Wrappers use the
learning algorithm itself to evaluate the usefulness of the
features. The filter algorithms that are widely used are:
Information Gain (IG), Document Frequency (DF),
F2statistic (CHI), Expected cross entropy (ECE), Weight
of evidence for text (WET), Odds ratio (ODD). Selection
of algorithm largely depends on the property of
multidimensional data and the selected machine learning
technique [10]. Wrapper algorithms like Sequential
backward selection (SBS), Sequential forward selection
(SFS), Plus-L minus-R selection (LRS), Genetic
algorithms (GA)[11,12] can be grouped into two
categories: greedy algorithms and random / stochastic
algorithms [13]. These algorithms typically give better
results than filter algorithms, but they are much slower
and need to be repeated every time when any changes in
the data structure happen, as well as the changes at
machine learning algorithm [14].
This article presents the evaluation of selection
algorithms on the base of the same data. During the study
a prediction over a different set of input features was
conducted. Analysis and comparison of results show the
achieved accuracy.
 II. OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH
The main objective of this study was to determine the
importance and influence of certain demographic features
of students in the process of prediction, to rank the
features in order of importance and determine the rank
threshold where the feature has an impact on the final
score of prediction and compare several algorithms
selection of features, evaluate the results and determine
algorithm that provide the best results.
To predict the student success two techniques of
machine learning were used: Naive Bayes and Support
Vector Machine (SVM). The prediction was achieved
with binary classes: successful and unsuccessful student.
The results of prediction were determined by two classes:
successful and unsuccessful student.
III. DATA SOURCE
The data used in this study are part of a national
database of Information System of Higher Education
Institutions (ISVU) [15].The database contains a large
number of different data about students organised into
several groups: personal demographic information,
demographic information about the parents and the type of
residence, information on passed exams, data on high
school achievement, information about the current student
status, social status of student, student grants for food. For
a description of one student the system uses more than 60
features. Prediction of student success is focused on
determining the success in first year of the study. In
addition to demographic data, which are the basis of this
research, student high school grades were added to the
input data, which is one of the categories in the
application to the study.
For training and test data, the data of the students
enrolled in the program in the last three academic years
2010- 2012 have been used. As the target data ECTS
(European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System)
credits which the student achieved at the end of the
academic year have been used. For success in the first
year of study a student must achieve at least 42 ECTS
credits. These students were classified in the "successful
students" class, other students in the "unsuccessful
students" class.
Cleaning and adjustment of the data was performed
before the feature selection and prediction. By removing
irrelevant and redundant data (ID number, address, phone
number, name of high school, job title ...) a collection of
15 demographic features remained. Each student is
described with the following demographic data, shown in
Table 1:
TABLE I.
LIST OF STUDENT DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
No Feature description
1. Sex - male / female
2. Place of birth - city post code or the birth place
of student
3. Nationality (Croatian) – Yes / No
4. Completed secondary school - the name of the
secondary school that the student has
1223
No Feature description
completed
5. Vocation - vocation which the student
completed at the secondary school
6. Duration of education - The number of years of
education in secondary school
7. Programme (curriculum) - designation of the
curriculum in secondary school
8. Profession - finished profession in secondary
school
9. Student rights - designation of student rights
and subventions
10. Marital status - married / unmarried
11. Status of residence – subtenant, lives with
his/her parents, his/her own flat/house
12. Education level of mother - the system defined
six levels of education
13. Mother’s profession - the current workplace
14. Education level of father - the system defined
six levels of education
15. Father’s profession - the current workplace
IV. CLASSIFICATION ALGORITHMS
In evaluation of quality of prediction two learning
techniques were used: Naive Bayes and Support Vector
Machine (SVM).For both of the two learning techniques
during forming the model a k-fold Cross-validation
method was used, by which the input data are divided into
k equal subsets. In k-fold Cross-validation, the training
sample is partitioned into k-folds as equally as possible
and each fold is left out of the learning process and used
as a testing set, k-1 folds used as a training set [16],[17].
A. Support Vector Machine (SVM)
SVM is a machine learning techniques used in the
field of data mining. SVM algorithm is based on statistical
learning theory developed by Vapnik (1995). The
algorithm is defined as a supervised learning algorithm
which solves linear and nonlinear binary classification
problem. The SVM training algorithm aims to find a
hyperplane that separates the multidimensional training
data into a discrete predefined number of classes, usual
binary class. The operation of the SVM algorithm is based
on finding the hyperplane that gives the largest minimum
distance to the training examples. Determining the
direction and position of the hyperplane where the
distance between the training data, both two-class, and
hyperplane will be maximised. The hypeplane divides
multidimensional training data into two sets: the positive
and negative class. Lines that pass the data vector that is
closest to the hypeplane are called margins. The training
data that lie on the margins, called support vectors, are the
only ones that define the hyperplane of maximum margin
[18],[19]. SVM ensures maximum distance between the
margins throughout the length of the hyperplane.
B. Naive Bayes (NB)
Naive Bayes is a linear classifier based on Bayesian
theorem [20]. The algorithm analyses the relations
between features and classes. The algorithm calculates the
conditional probability for relations between the values of
the features and classes. Features {x1, ...,xk} represent a
vector x, vector x belongs to class c. During training, the
algorithm determines the probability of each class.
Probability is computed by counting how many times it
occurs in the training dataset. This is called the prior
probability P(C=c). The algorithm also calculates the
probability that the instance x belongs to class c, shown in
equation (1)[17]
P(C c) – P( X
i
i |C c)
P(C c| X x)
P( X x)
In the denominator there is a scalar coefficient, which is
calculated as the sum of all the associated probability,
shown in equation (2)
P( X x) ¦ P(Cj j ) P( X x|Cj).
This algorithm carried out a quality prediction over a
small amount of training data, enables the use of multiple
output class, but is sensitive to pre-processing of data and
prediction over nominal data [21].
V. FEATURE SELECTION
The features selection is performed in order to
optimise the operation of the classifier. Prediction is often
performed over multi-dimensional data with a large
number of features. In order to achieve a simpler and
faster classification, some systems reduce the number of
input features and determine the features which have a
significant role in classification. Features get ranked and
determine a features subset which is sent to the prediction
model. Selection methods which have been used for the
purposes of this article:
A. Info Gain (IG)
Info Gain method calculates the value of the features
information taking into account the class to which they
belong, thereby determining the entropy. IG uses the
following expression for the calculation:
Info Gain (Klasa, Atribut)=H (Klasa) – H(Klasa|Atribut),
where H is the entropy, which is defined by using the
following equation (3)
m VI.
Entropy ( S )  ¦
j 1
p j log 2 p j ,
where p is the probability, for which a particular value
occurs in the sample space S.
Entropy value ranges from 0 to 1. Value 0 means that
all instances of the variables have the same value, value 1
equals the number of instances of each value. Entropy
shows how the attribute values are distributed and
indicates "purity" of attributes. High entropy indicates the
uniform distribution of attributes. Opposite to that, low
entropy indicates distribution which is concentrated
around the point [22].
B. Gain Ratio (GR)
The Gain Ratio method is a normalized version of
Information Gain. Normalization is accomplished by
dividing the information gain with the entropy of the
attribute with respect to the class. The result of this
approach is reduced bias from the information obtained by
the algorithm. The formula used by the GR is represented
by Eq. (4)[22]
( H ( Klasa )  H ( Klasa | Atribut ))
GR( Klasa, Atribut ) . (4)
H ( Atribut )
C. Sequential forward selection (SFS)
. (1)
Sequential forward selection is a simple greedy search
algorithm which is trying to determine the optimal set of
features. The algorithm uses a special list in which the
optimal features are recorded. At the beginning the list is
empty. The algorithm adds in the list feature x + whose
objective function J (Yk + x +) gives the best result when
(2) combined with the feature Yk which has been selected and
is on the list.
Algorithm pseudocode [23]:
1. Start with the empty set, initialise the feature set
Y0={Ø}; k=0
2. Select the next best feature
x+=argmax[J(Yk+x)]; x¢Yk
3. Update the feature set Yk+1=Yk+ x+;
4. While k < d
k=k+1
Go to Step 2
D. Sequential backward selection (SBS)
Sequential backward selection is an algorithm that is
similar to the SFS algorithm, but it works in the opposite
direction. Initially, the algorithm in its optimal list has all
the features of X from set D. Algorithm removes a single
feature that improves (or minimally worsens) an objective
function to obtain the best subset of features. The
algorithm uses the objective function J (Yx-) and
determines for which attribute function the minimum
value is returned. This attribute is permanently removed
from the list and increases the value of the target function.
J (Yk- x-) > J (Yk).
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
(3) A. Features ranking
For each student in the database approximately 62
demographic features are located. The original data
contained a large number of missing, redundant and
irrelevant data. Before the pre-processing of input data
and reducing the number of features, feature selection and
calculation of the prediction of student success was
performed over the "raw" data, all in order to enable later
results evaluation, to enable defending individual impact
of features in achievement of prediction accuracy.
For the classification of raw data and features ranking
we used the Information Gain method and SVM classifier.
The study achieved "interesting" results of ranging
1224
features and very poor prediction accuracy. Table 2 shows that successful students have(cheaper food, transport,
the results of ranking top 10 features. students' service, etc.).
TABLE II. TABLE III.
RATING LIST OF FEATURE – RAW DATA RATING LIST OF SELECTED FEATURE
Ranked attributes Rating
0.94142 1 Student surname Ranked feature:
0.86595 2 Date of birth Info 0.74982 1 Average grade
0.86595 3 Citizenship Gain 0.29000 2 Programme (curriculum)
0.77155 4 Address (IG) 0.15111 3 Completed secondary school
0.71501 5 Average grade 0.14609 4 Secondary vocation
0.71001 6 Mother's name 0.1079 5 Student rights
0.70076 7 Student name 0.08909 6 Education level of the father
0.41789 9 City 0.08285 7 Place of birth
0.41789 8 Place of residence 0.08262 8 Education level of the mother
0.40975 10 Father’s name 0.05238 9 Duration of education
0.30528 11 Student rights 0.04683 10 Mother’s profession
... 0.03954 11 Father’s profession
0.03700 12 Status of residence
0.02160 13 Marital status
In the classification, input data were divided into 10-
fold Cross-validation. The following results were 0.01381 14 Nationality
obtained: 0.00497 15 Sex
Ranked feature:
Correctly Classified Instances 56.6038 % Gain 0.16713 13 Marital status
Incorrectly Classified Instances 43.3962 % Ratio 0.11926 1 Average grade
Kappa statistic 0.0225 (GR) 0.08177 12 Status of residence
Mean absolute error 0.434 0.07612 2 Programme (curriculum)
Root mean squared error 0.6588 0.06896 5 Student rights
Relative absolute error 93.8619 % 0.05782 6 Education level of the father
Root relative squared error 137.1311 % 0.05516 3 Completed secondary school
0.04679 8 Education level of the mother
Results show a low level of prediction accuracy, with only 0.04674 4 Profession
56.6% correctly classified instances. The analysis of input 0.04071 9 Duration of education
data showed a significant number of incomplete data 0.03897 7 Place of birth
which certainly had an impact on prediction accuracy. 0.01885 14 Nationality
0.0139 10 Mother’s profession
After classification, original data were pre-processed, 0.01272 11 Father’s profession
irrelevant data and redundant features removed. The
0.00561 15 Sex
results of the analysis separated 15 demographic features,
Ranked feature:
features that were used in further process of prediction SFS/
determination. Ranking using all four methods was 0.206 1 Average grade
SBS 0.179 5 Student rights
conducted on the selected demographic features. Table 3
shows the results of the ranking depending on the chosen 0.177 2 Programme (curriculum)
selection method. 0.176 12 Status of residence
0.172 13 Marital status
The results are somewhat different than we expected at 0.168 6 Education level of the father
the beginning of the studies. All used ranking methods 0.166 3 Completed secondary school
have highlighted "Average grade" feature as the most 0.163 9 Duration of education
important, more than any demographic features. This is
0.158 8 Education level of the mother
somehow logical because various demographic data such
0.154 7 Place of birth
as situation in the family, type of curriculum, etc. have the
impact on the final secondary school grades. Secondary 0.150 4 Profession
school results are a strong indicator of success / failure of 0.145 14 Nationality
the newly enrolled students. 0.138 10 Mother’s profession
0.132 11 Father’s profession
From the ranked demographic attributes, the analysis 0.127 15 Sex
highlighted the curriculum that the student completed in
secondary school as one of the more important for Selective methods have also underlined the parents'
prediction. According to the rank results, the curriculum education as an important element in predicting the
that the student learned in high school has significant
student success. According to the character of data,
influences on the success during the study. The second
father’s education has a significant role compared with
demographic feature that has an impact on the prediction
is "Student rights". The feature belongs to a group of mother’s education. All methods have determined that the
motivating features in order to keep the acquired rights gender of students is ranked the lowest. This information

1225
leads to the conclusion that this attribute should have the accuracy reduction if a specific feature is not taken into
least impact on the data classification. This could be due consideration during classification. Positive value has the
to relatively small number of female population that is opposite effect on the prediction. In other words, the
enrolled in the study of computing engineering. assumption is that the separation of particular feature
from a set of input features would increase the accuracy
B. Features impact
of prediction.
With specifying the individual impact of each
attribute, a features selection process can be improved and Such a classification and analysis of the results
a more accurate classification provided. After showed the interesting results. The biggest impact of the
implementing the feature selection, classifications were
features has been calculated for “Student rights” feature.
performed with both techniques, NB and SVM. Table 4
As mentioned in the previous section, this feature
shows the results of classification.
indicates the students motive to keep student status and
TABLE IV. achieve some benefits. Very often some of the students
CLASSIFICATION RESULTS
try to maintain their status due to the difficult economic
Classification summary Naive Bayes SVM situation or heavy employment. The second ranked
Correctly Classified 61.607% 70.53 % feature by impact on prediction is “Completed secondary
Incorrectly Classified 38.39 % 29.46% school” feature.The years of my experience justify this
result. This feature is the most significant at the study
Kappa statistic 0.2287 0.4027 programmeswhich belong to the area of technical
Mean absolute error 0.4128 0.2946 sciences. For the purpose of this research the students
Root mean squared error 0.5268 0.5428 come from three types of secondary schools: technical
school, high school and school of economics. By
comparing the data about their ECTS, it is evident that
The results show that the SVM classifier achieved significantly better results were achieved by the students
significantly better prediction than NB classifier. SVM from technical schools. In Table 5, four features that have
also achieved better results with all demographic shown positive Impact factorwere indicated, which means
attributes involved. After measuring, the classification that they have no significant impact on the accuracy of
additional analysis of the feature impact on classification prediction. To evaluate this assumption a classification
accuracywas performed. In testing the prediction, some was carried out in a way that the indicated features were
target features were blocked and after that the accuracy removed from the input set. After extracting the attribute
using SVM technique was measured. The obtained classification with both techniques better accuracy of
results are shown in Table 5. prediction, for approximately 5%,was achieved. Table 6
shows the evaluation results:
TABLE VI.
TABLE V. THE CLASSIFICATION WITH REDUCED SET OF FEATURES
FEATURES IMPACTED TO THE RESULT OF CLASSIFICATION
Classification technique
Feature Accuracy Impact
Naive Bayes
Average grade 66.96 -5% Correctly Classified 65.1786 %
Programme (curriculum) 64.28 -9% Incorrectly Classified 34.8214 %
Kappa statistic 0.3004
Completed secondary school 62.50 -11%
Mean absolute error 0.3876
Secondary vocation 69.64 -1% Root mean squared error 0.5013
Student rights 55.34 -22% Classification Improvement ca. 6%
Education level of father 69.64 -1%
Support Vector Machine
Place of birth 73.21 +4% Correctly Classified 73.2143 %
Education level of mother 73.21 +4% Incorrectly Classified 26,7857 %
Duration of education 65.17 -8% Kappa statistic 0.4582
Mean absolute error 0.2679
Mother’s profession 71.42 +1% Root mean squared error 0.5175
Father’s profession 69.64 -1% Classification Improvement ca. 4%
Status of residence 71.42 +1%
Marital status 70.73 0% VII. CONCLUSION
Nationality 69.64 -1%
Evaluation of the results definitely has proved that
Sex 68.75 -3% quality pre-processing is a requirement for obtaining
good results of classification, in this case the prediction
In the table, the column "Impact", shows the impact of student success. In the study of selection and ranking
of each feature on the prediction accuracy expressed as a features four relatively commonly used methods are used:
percentage. A negative value indicates the percentage of Information Gain (IG), Gain Ratio (GR), Sequential

1226
Backward Selection (SBS), Sequential Forward Selection
(SFS). None of the methods showed identical results of
ranking features.It can be concluded that in the selection
of attributes and determination of their importance in
predicting it is necessary to include additional verification
and empirical methods.
Evaluation results of ranking have shown three
features that have a significant impact on the success of
the study: Average grade, Completed secondary school
and Student rights. The analysis of results offers a
conclusion that the completed secondary school and the
curriculum are very important for success in the first year
of the study. Students with poor professional prior
knowledge adapt harder to the requirements of the
technical study, which in some way justifies the faculties
when emphasising that future students should pass some
specific courses. In addition to the list of courses,
faculties also give great importance to final secondary
schoolgrades.
Two other demographic features have a different
meaning. Students who come from technical schools, in
this case, they can easily adapt on study demands because
they have necessary background knowledge which is
required for technical studies. In this way some students
have reduced the impact of lower grades from the high
school. Other demographic feature acts as a motivational
factor in education, as previously explained. We
conducted a ranking of features with four different
methods. Each method has estimated slightly different
order of features importance. In estimating the impact of
demographic features on the prediction accuracy, analysis
was pointed out that feature "Student rights" had the
[3] L.David, O.D.Delen, "Advanced data mining techniques",
Springer, 2008.
[4] S.Pandya, Dr.Paresh V. Virparia, “Comparing the applications of
various algorithms of classification technique of data mining in an
Indian“, in IJARCSSE, vol. 3, 2013.
[5] R.Dash, R.L.Paramguru, R.Dash, “Comparative analysis of
Supervised and Unsupervised discretization techniques“, in
International Journal of Advances in Science and Technology, vol.
2, No. 3, 2011.
[6] T.Karunaratne, H.Boström, U.Norinder, “Pre-Processing
structured data for standard machine learning algorithms by
supervised graph propositionalization - a Case study with
medicinal chemistry datasets“, in Machine Learning and
Applications (ICMLA), 2010.
[7] W.Jianping, “Research on data preprocessing in supermarket
customers data mining“, Information Engineering and Computer
Science, 2010, pp.1-4.
[8] Pablo Bermejo, Luis de la Ossa, José A. Gámez, José M. Puerta,
"Fast wrapper feature subset selection in high-dimensional
datasets by means of filter re-ranking", Knowledge-Based
Systems, vol.25, 2012, pp. 35-44.
[9] S.Beniwal, J.Arora, “Classification and feature selection
techniques in data mining“, in International Journal of Engineering
Research & Technology, 2012.
[10] Yan Xu, “A comparative study on feature selection in Chinese
Spam Filtering“, in Application of Information and
Communication Technologies (AICT), 2012, pp. 1-6.
[11] S.F. Pratama, A.K. Muda, “Feature selection methods for writer
identification: A Comparative Study“, in International Conference
on Computer and Computational Intelligence, 2010.
[12] X. Liu, L.Shang, “A fast wrapper feature subset selection method
based On Binary Particle Swarm Optimization“, in IEEE Congress
on Evolutionary Computation, 2013, pp. 3347-3353.
[13] I.A.Gheyas, L.Smith, “Feature subset selection in large
dimensionality domains“, in Pattern Recognition, 2009.
[14] Hui-Yan Wang, “A comparative study of the feature selection
influence on diagnosis In traditional Chinese medicine“, in
Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Machine
Learning and Cybernetics, Qingdao, 2010.
[15] Informacijski sustav visokih  



greatest impact. The results of analysis have shown that
“Place of birth”, “Education level of mother”, “Mother
profession” and “Status of residence” are four features
who do not have a significant impact on the
classification. After determining the impact of features,
four features with the least impact were removed from the
input set. After reducing the number features, with new
classification was achieved about 5% better results. The
obtained results indicate the need for involving additional
control in the features selection process. One of possible
solutions is to introduce a hybrid model of prediction.
Model that with additional algorithms would increase the
accuracy of prediction. This assumption gives a scope for
further research in the field of classification and
prediction of students success.
znanosti i tehnologije Republike Hrvatske, 2003.
[16] Ji-Hyun Kim, “Estimating classification error rate: Repeated
Cross-validation, Repeated Hold-out and Bootstrap“, Department
of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Soongsil University, 2009.
[17] N. Williams, S.Zander, G.Armitage, "Evaluating machine learning
algorithms for automated network application identification",
CAIA Technical Report, 2006.
[18] G. Mountrakis, J.Im, C.Ogole, "Support vector machines in
remote sensing: A review", in Journal of Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing, 2010.
[19] Pei-Chann Chang, Chiung-Hua Huang, Chi-Yang Tsai, “A hybrid
system by the integration of Case-Based-Reasoning with Support
Vector Machine for prediction of financial crisis“, in ICIC
International, vol. 9, No. 6, 2013.
[20] G. H. John, P. Langley, “Estimating continuous distributions in
Bayesian classifiers”, 11th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial
Intelligence, pp. 338-345, Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, 1995.
[21] S.B.Kotsiantis, "Supervised machine learning: A Review of
classification techniques", Informatica 31, 2007, pp. 249-268.
REFERENCES [22] 
!
"#$
% &
C.Acar,
[1] C. Romero, S. Ventura, P. G. Espejo, C. Hervás,“ Data mining
algorithms to classify students“, in 1st Int. Conf. on Educational
Data Mining, 2008, pp. 187-191.
[2] R.R.Kabra, R.S.Bichkar, “Performance prediction of engineering
etudents using Decision trees“, in International Journal of
Computer Applications, vol. 36, No.11, 2011.
"Comparison of feature selection Algorithms for medical data",
IEEE Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications, 2012.
[23] L.Ladha, T.Deepa, "Feature selection methods and algorithms“, in
International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering, vol.3,
No.5, 2011.
[24] Ricardo Gutierrez-Osuna, "Pattern analysis", CSCE

1227