Difference between revisions of "Asian/Asian-American Learners in North America"

From Penn Center for Learning Analytics Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(re-ordering)
Line 1: Line 1:
Christie et al. (2019) [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED599217.pdf pdf]
Christie et al. (2019) [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED599217.pdf pdf]
* Models predicting student's high school dropout
* Models predicting student's high school dropout
* The decision trees showed little difference in AUC among White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, and  Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander.
* The decision trees showed little difference in AUC among Asian, White, Black, Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska Native, and  Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander.




Line 12: Line 12:
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)
* Random forest algorithms performed significantly better for non-URM students (Asian and White) than for underrepresented minority students (URM; American Indian, Black, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Multicultural)
* 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
* 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



Revision as of 06:03, 10 June 2022

Christie et al. (2019) pdf

  • Models predicting student's high school dropout
  • The decision trees showed little difference in AUC among Asian, White, Black, Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander.


Bridgeman et al. (2009) page

  • Automated scoring models for evaluating English essays, or e-rater
  • E-Rater gave significantly better scores than human rater for 11th grade essays written by Hispanic students and Asian-American students


Lee and Kizilcec (2020) pdf

  • Models predicting college success (or median grade or above)
  • Random forest algorithms performed significantly better for non-URM students (Asian and White) than for underrepresented minority students (URM; American Indian, Black, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Multicultural)
  • 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


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