Difference between revisions of "Latino/Latina/Latinx/Hispanic Learners in North America"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* 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) | * 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) | ||
* The fairness of the model, namely demographic parity and equality of opportunity, as well as its accuracy, improved after correcting the threshold values | * The fairness of the model, namely demographic parity and equality of opportunity, as well as its accuracy, improved after correcting the threshold values | ||
Yu et al. (2020) [[https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED608066.pdf pdf]] | |||
* Model predicting undergraduate short-term (course grades) and long-term (average GPA) success | |||
* Hispanic students were inaccurately predicted to perform worse for both short-term and long-term | |||
* The fairness of models improved when either click or a combination of click and survey data, and not institutional data, was included in the model | |||
Revision as of 20:10, 22 March 2022
Anderson et al. (2019) pdf
- Models predicting six-year college graduation
- False negatives rates were greater for Latino students when Decision Tree and Random Forest yielded was used
- White students had higher false positive rates across all models, Decision Tree, SVM, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and SGD
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)
- The fairness of the model, namely demographic parity and equality of opportunity, as well as its accuracy, improved after correcting the threshold values
Yu et al. (2020) [pdf]
- Model predicting undergraduate short-term (course grades) and long-term (average GPA) success
- Hispanic students were inaccurately predicted to perform worse for both short-term and long-term
- The fairness of models improved when either click or a combination of click and survey data, and not institutional data, was included in the model