• Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.77-97
• /
• 2010

Market timing is an investment strategy which is used for obtaining excessive return from financial market. In general, detection of market timing means determining when to buy and sell to get excess return from trading. In many market timing systems, trading rules have been used as an engine to generate signals for trade. On the other hand, some researchers proposed the rough set analysis as a proper tool for market timing because it does not generate a signal for trade when the pattern of the market is uncertain by using the control function. The data for the rough set analysis should be discretized of numeric value because the rough set only accepts categorical data for analysis. Discretization searches for proper "cuts" for numeric data that determine intervals. All values that lie within each interval are transformed into same value. In general, there are four methods for data discretization in rough set analysis including equal frequency scaling, expert's knowledge-based discretization, minimum entropy scaling, and na$\ddot{i}$ve and Boolean reasoning-based discretization. Equal frequency scaling fixes a number of intervals and examines the histogram of each variable, then determines cuts so that approximately the same number of samples fall into each of the intervals. Expert's knowledge-based discretization determines cuts according to knowledge of domain experts through literature review or interview with experts. Minimum entropy scaling implements the algorithm based on recursively partitioning the value set of each variable so that a local measure of entropy is optimized. Na$\ddot{i}$ve and Booleanreasoning-based discretization searches categorical values by using Na$\ddot{i}$ve scaling the data, then finds the optimized dicretization thresholds through Boolean reasoning. Although the rough set analysis is promising for market timing, there is little research on the impact of the various data discretization methods on performance from trading using the rough set analysis. In this study, we compare stock market timing models using rough set analysis with various data discretization methods. The research data used in this study are the KOSPI 200 from May 1996 to October 1998. KOSPI 200 is the underlying index of the KOSPI 200 futures which is the first derivative instrument in the Korean stock market. The KOSPI 200 is a market value weighted index which consists of 200 stocks selected by criteria on liquidity and their status in corresponding industry including manufacturing, construction, communication, electricity and gas, distribution and services, and financing. The total number of samples is 660 trading days. In addition, this study uses popular technical indicators as independent variables. The experimental results show that the most profitable method for the training sample is the na$\ddot{i}$ve and Boolean reasoning but the expert's knowledge-based discretization is the most profitable method for the validation sample. In addition, the expert's knowledge-based discretization produced robust performance for both of training and validation sample. We also compared rough set analysis and decision tree. This study experimented C4.5 for the comparison purpose. The results show that rough set analysis with expert's knowledge-based discretization produced more profitable rules than C4.5.

• Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.117-134
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to identify the stage of concern, the level of use, and the innovation configuration of Home Economics teachers regarding creativity and personality education in Home Economics(HE) classes. The survey questionnaires were sent through mails and e-mails to middle-school HE teachers in the whole country selected by systematic sampling and convenience sampling. Questionnaires of the stages of concern and the levels of use developed by Hall(1987) were used in this study. 187 data were used for the final analysis by using SPSS/window(12.0) program. The results of the study were as following: First, for the stage of concerns of HE teachers on creativity and personality education, the information stage of concerns(85.51) was the one with the highest response rate and the next high in the following order: the management stage of concerns(81.88), the awareness stage of concerns(82.15), the refocusing stage of concerns(68.80), the collaboration stage of concerns(61.97), and the consequence stage of concerns(59.76). Second, the levels of use of HE teachers on creativity and personality education was highest with the mechanical levels(level 3; 21.4%) and the next high in the following order: the orientation levels of use(level 1; 20.9%), the refinement levels(level 5; 17.1%), the non-use levels(level 0; 15.0%), the preparation levels(level 2; 10.2%), the integration levels(level 6; 5.9%), the renewal levels(level 7; 4.8%), the routine levels(level 4; 4.8%). Third, for the innovation configuration of HE teachers on creativity and personality education, more than half of the HE teachers(56.1%) mainly focused on personality education in their HE classes; 31.0% of the HE teachers performed both creativity and personality education; a small number of teachers(6.4%) focused on creativity education; the same number of teachers(6.4%) responded that they do not focus on neither of the two. Examining the level and type of performance HE teachers applied, the average score on the performance of creativity and personality education was 3.76 out of 5.00 and the mean of creativity component was 3.59 and of personality component was 3.94, higher than standard. For the creativity education, openness/sensitivity(3.97) education was performed most and the next most in the following order: problem-solving skill(3.79), curiosity/interest(3.73), critical thinking(3.63), problem-finding skill(3.61), originality(3.57), analogy(3.47), fluency/adaptability(3.46), precision(3.46), imagination(3.37), and focus/sympathy(3.37). For the personality education, the following components were performed in order from most to least: power of execution(4.07), cooperation/consideration/just(4.06), self-management skill(4.04), civic consciousness(4.04), career development ability(4.03), environment adaptability(3.95), responsibility/ownership(3.94), decision making(3.89), trust/honesty/promise(3.88), autonomy(3.86), and global competency(3.55). Regarding what makes performing creativity and personality education difficult, most HE teachers(64.71%) chose the lack of instructional materials and 40.11% of participants chose the lack of seminar and workshop opportunity. 38.5% chose the difficulty of developing an evaluation criteria or an evaluation tool while 25.67% responded that they do not know any means of performing creativity and personality education. Regarding the better way to support for creativity and personality education, the HE teachers chose in order from most to least: 'expansion of hands-on activities for students related to education on creativity and personality'(4.34), 'development of HE classroom culture putting emphasis on creativity and personality'(4.29), 'a proper curriculum on creativity and personality education that goes along with students' developmental stages'(4.27), 'securing enough human resource and number of professors who will conduct creativity and personality education'(4.21), 'establishment of the concept and value of the education on creativity and personality'(4.09), and 'educational promotion on creativity and personality education supported by local communities and companies'(3.94).