Difference between revisions of "Gender: Male/Female"

From Penn Center for Learning Analytics Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
Line 48: Line 48:
* Models predicting course outcome of students in a virtual learning environment (VLE)
* 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
* 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

Revision as of 12:51, 28 March 2022

Kai et al. (2017) pdf

  • Models predicting student retention in an online college program
  • J48 decision trees achieved significantly lower Kappa but higher AUC for male students than female students
  • JRip decision rules achieved much lower Kappa and AUC for male students than female students


Hu and Rangwala (2020) pdf

  • Models predicting if a college student will fail in a course
  • Multiple cooperative classifier model (MCCM) model was the best at reducing bias, or discrimination against male students, performing particularly better for Psychology course.
  • Other models (Logistic Regression and Rawlsian Fairness) performed far worse for male students, performing particularly worse in Computer Science and Electrical Engineering.


Anderson et al. (2019) pdf

  • Models predicting six-year college graduation
  • False negatives rates were greater for male students than female students when SVM, Logistic Regression, and SGD were used


Gardner, Brooks and Baker (2019) [pdf]

  • Model predicting MOOC dropout, specifically through slicing analysis
  • Some algorithms studied performed worse for female students than male students, particularly in courses with 45% or less male presence


Riazy et al. (2020) [pdf]

  • Model predicting course outcome
  • Marginal differences were found for prediction quality and in overall proportion of predicted pass between groups
  • Inconsistent in direction between algorithms.


Lee and Kizilcec (2020) [pdf]

  • Models predicting college success (or median grade or above)
  • 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


Yu et al. (2020) [pdf]

  • Model predicting undergraduate short-term (course grades) and long-term (average GPA) success
  • Female students were inaccurately predicted to achieve greater short-term and long-term success than male students.
  • The fairness of models improved when a combination of institutional and click data was used in the model


Yu and colleagues (2021) [pdf]

  • Models predicting college dropout for students in residential and fully online program
  • Whether the protected attributed were included or not, the models had worse true negative rates but better recall for male students
  • The model was worse for male students studying in online program in terms of true negative rates, recall and accuracy.


Riazy et al. (2020) [[pdf](https://www.scitepress.org/Papers/2020/93241/93241.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