Difference between revisions of "Course Grade and GPA Prediction"
		
		
		
		
		
		Jump to navigation
		Jump to search
		
				
		
		
	
 (Add Svabensky@EDM'24)  | 
				|||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Švábenský et al. (2024) [https://educationaldatamining.org/edm2024/proceedings/2024.EDM-posters.82/2024.EDM-posters.82.pdf pdf]  | |||
* Classification models for predicting grades (worse than an average grade, “unsuccessful”, or equal/better than an average grade, “successful”)  | |||
* Investigating bias based on university students' regional background in the context of the Philippines  | |||
* Demographic groups based on 1 of 5 locations from which students accessed online courses in Canvas  | |||
* Bias evaluation using AUC, weighted F1-score, and MADD showed consistent results across all groups, no unfairness was observed  | |||
Lee and Kizilcec (2020) [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2007.00088.pdf pdf]  | Lee and Kizilcec (2020) [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2007.00088.pdf pdf]  | ||
* Models predicting college success (or median grade or above)  | * Models predicting college success (or median grade or above)  | ||
*Random forest algorithms performed significantly worse for underrepresented minority students (URM; American Indian, Black, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Multicultural) than non-URM students (White and Asian), for male students than female students  | *Random forest algorithms performed significantly worse for underrepresented minority students (URM; American Indian, Black, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Multicultural) than non-URM students (White and Asian), for male students than female students  | ||
* The fairness of the model   | *Random forest algorithms performed significantly worse for male students than female students  | ||
* The fairness of the model, namely demographic parity and equality of opportunity, as well as its accuracy, improved after correcting the threshold values from 0.5 to group-specific values<br />  | |||
Yu et al. (2020) [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED608066.pdf pdf]  | Yu et al. (2020) [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED608066.pdf pdf]  | ||
*   | * Models predicting undergraduate course grades and average GPA  | ||
* Students who are international, first-generation, or from low-income households were inaccurately predicted to get lower course grade and average GPA than their peer, and fairness of models improved with the inclusion of clickstream and survey data  | * Students who are international, first-generation, or from low-income households were inaccurately predicted to get lower course grade and average GPA than their peer, and fairness of models improved with the inclusion of clickstream and survey data  | ||
| Line 21: | Line 29: | ||
* More male students were predicted to pass the course than female students, but  this overestimation was fairly small and not consistent across different algorithms  | * More male students were predicted to pass the course than female students, but  this overestimation was fairly small and not consistent across different algorithms  | ||
*Among the algorithms, Naive Bayes had the lowest normalized mutual information value and the highest ABROCA value, or differences between the area under curve  | *Among the algorithms, Naive Bayes had the lowest normalized mutual information value and the highest ABROCA value, or differences between the area under curve  | ||
* Students with self-declared disability were predicted to pass the course more often  | |||
Jiang & Pardos (2021) [https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3461702.3462623 pdf]  | |||
* Predicting university course grades using LSTM  | |||
* Roughly equal accuracy across racial groups  | |||
* Slightly better accuracy (~1%) across racial groups when including race in model  | |||
Kung & Yu (2020)  | |||
[https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3386527.3406755 pdf]  | |||
* Predicting course grades and later GPA at public U.S. university  | |||
* Five algorithms and three metrics (independence, separation, sufficiency) analyzed  | |||
* Poorer performance for Latinx students on course grade prediction for all three metrics; poorer performance for Latinx students on GPA prediction in terms of independence and sufficiency, but not separation  | |||
* Poorer performance for first-generation students on course grade prediction for independence and separation, and for some algorithms for GPA prediction as well  | |||
* Poorer performance for low-income students in several cases, about 1/3 of cases checked  | |||
Jeong et al. (2022) [https://fated2022.github.io/assets/pdf/FATED-2022_paper_Jeong_Racial_Bias_ML_Algs.pdf]  | |||
* Predicting 9th grade math score from academic performance, surveys, and demographic information  | |||
* Despite comparable accuracy, model tends to overpredict Asian and White students' performance, and underpredict Black, Hispanic, and Native American students' performance  | |||
* Several fairness correction methods equalize false positive and false negative rates across groups.  | |||
Sha et al. (2022) [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9849852]  | |||
* Predicting course pass/fail with random forest in Open University data  | |||
* A range of over-sampling methods tested  | |||
* Regardless of over-sampling method used, course pass/fail performance was moderately better for males  | |||
*   | Deho et al. (2023) [https://files.osf.io/v1/resources/5am9z/providers/osfstorage/63eaf170a3fade041fe7c9db?format=pdf&action=download&direct&version=1]  | ||
* Predicting whether course grade will be above or below 0.5  | |||
* Better prediction for female students in some courses, better prediction for male students in other courses  | |||
* Generally worse prediction for international students  | |||
Latest revision as of 19:06, 1 September 2024
Švábenský et al. (2024) pdf
- Classification models for predicting grades (worse than an average grade, “unsuccessful”, or equal/better than an average grade, “successful”)
 - Investigating bias based on university students' regional background in the context of the Philippines
 - Demographic groups based on 1 of 5 locations from which students accessed online courses in Canvas
 - Bias evaluation using AUC, weighted F1-score, and MADD showed consistent results across all groups, no unfairness was observed
 
Lee and Kizilcec (2020) pdf
- Models predicting college success (or median grade or above)
 - Random forest algorithms performed significantly worse for underrepresented minority students (URM; American Indian, Black, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Multicultural) than non-URM students (White and Asian), for male students than female students
 - Random forest algorithms performed significantly worse for male students than female students
 - The fairness of the model, namely demographic parity and equality of opportunity, as well as its accuracy, improved after correcting the threshold values from 0.5 to group-specific values
 
Yu et al. (2020) pdf
- Models predicting undergraduate course grades and average GPA
 
- Students who are international, first-generation, or from low-income households were inaccurately predicted to get lower course grade and average GPA than their peer, and fairness of models improved with the inclusion of clickstream and survey data
 - Female students were inaccurately predicted to achieve greater short-term and long-term success than male students, and fairness of models improved when a combination of institutional and click data was used in the model
 
Riazy et al. (2020) pdf
- Models predicting course outcome of students in a virtual learning environment (VLE)
 - More male students were predicted to pass the course than female students, but this overestimation was fairly small and not consistent across different algorithms
 - Among the algorithms, Naive Bayes had the lowest normalized mutual information value and the highest ABROCA value, or differences between the area under curve
 - Students with self-declared disability were predicted to pass the course more often
 
Jiang & Pardos (2021) pdf
- Predicting university course grades using LSTM
 - Roughly equal accuracy across racial groups
 - Slightly better accuracy (~1%) across racial groups when including race in model
 
Kung & Yu (2020)
pdf
- Predicting course grades and later GPA at public U.S. university
 - Five algorithms and three metrics (independence, separation, sufficiency) analyzed
 - Poorer performance for Latinx students on course grade prediction for all three metrics; poorer performance for Latinx students on GPA prediction in terms of independence and sufficiency, but not separation
 - Poorer performance for first-generation students on course grade prediction for independence and separation, and for some algorithms for GPA prediction as well
 - Poorer performance for low-income students in several cases, about 1/3 of cases checked
 
Jeong et al. (2022) [1]
- Predicting 9th grade math score from academic performance, surveys, and demographic information
 - Despite comparable accuracy, model tends to overpredict Asian and White students' performance, and underpredict Black, Hispanic, and Native American students' performance
 - Several fairness correction methods equalize false positive and false negative rates across groups.
 
Sha et al. (2022) [2]
- Predicting course pass/fail with random forest in Open University data
 - A range of over-sampling methods tested
 - Regardless of over-sampling method used, course pass/fail performance was moderately better for males
 
Deho et al. (2023) [3]
- Predicting whether course grade will be above or below 0.5
 - Better prediction for female students in some courses, better prediction for male students in other courses
 - Generally worse prediction for international students