Difference between revisions of "Socioeconomic Status"

From Penn Center for Learning Analytics Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 34: Line 34:




Queiroga et al. (2022) [https://doi.org/10.3390/info13090401 pdf]
Queiroga et al. (2022) [https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/13/9/401 pdf]


* Models predicting secondary school students at risk of failure or dropping out
* Models predicting secondary school students at risk of failure or dropping out
* Models achieved high performances with an AUC ROC higher than 0.90 and F1 higher than 0.88
* Model was unable to make prediction of student success (F1 score = 0.0) for students not in a social welfare program (higher socioeconomic status)
* Equal performance for both genders students who participated in the educational system and completed their studies
* Model had slightly lower AUC ROC (0.52 instead of 0.56) for students not in a social welfare program (higher socioeconomic status)
* Students engaged in social welfare programs results in fewer problems in education
 
* The F1 score for social welfare program is 0.80, while for no social welfare program is 0, indicating bias toward social welfare program students
 
* The two most important features to predict students at risk in secondary school in Uruguay early are first-year primary school zones (rural or urban) and sixth-year assessment-based grouping
Permodo et al. (2023) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370001437_Difficult_Lessons_on_Social_Prediction_from_Wisconsin_Public_Schools pdf]
 
* Paper discusses system that predicts probabilities of on-time graduation
* Prediction is more accurate for low-income students than non-low-income students
 
 
Cock et al.(2023) [[https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3576050.3576149?casa_token=6Fjh-EUzN-gAAAAA%3AtpRMYzSAVoQFYNzwY5gwSsrnzHIlI0tUjMq6okwgdcCUmuBMVZEtn8eLO52dCtIYUbrHBV_Il9Sx pdf]]
 
* Paper investigates biases in models designed to early identify middle school students at risk of failing in flipped-classroom course and open-ended exploration environment (TugLet)
* Model performs worse for students from school with higher socio-economic status in open-ended environment (FNR=0.73 for higher SES and FNR=0.57 for medium SES).

Latest revision as of 23:14, 27 November 2023

Yudelson et al. (2014) pdf

  • Models discovering generalizable sub-populations of students across different schools to predict students' learning with Carnegie Learning’s Cognitive Tutor (CLCT)
  • Models trained on schools with a high proportion of low-SES student performed worse than those trained with medium or low proportion
  • Models trained on schools with low, medium proportion of SES students performed similarly well for schools with high proportions of low-SES students


Yu et al. (2020) pdf

  • Models predicting undergraduate course grades and average GPA
  • Students from low-income households were inaccurately predicted to perform worse for both short-term (final course grade) and long-term (GPA)
  • Fairness of model improved if it included only clickstream and survey data


Yu et al. (2021) pdf

  • Models predicting college dropout for students in residential and fully online program
  • Whether the socio-demographic information was included or not, the model showed worse accuracy and true negative rates for residential students with greater financial needs
  • The model showed better recall for students with greater financial needs, especially for those studying in person


Kung & Yu (2020) pdf

  • Predicting course grades and later GPA at public U.S. university
  • Equal performance for low-income and upper-income students in course grade prediction for several algorithms and metrics
  • Worse performance on independence for low-income students than high-income students in later GPA prediction for four of five algorithms; one algorithm had worse separation and two algorithms had worse sufficiency


Litman et al. (2021) html

  • Automated essay scoring models inferring text evidence usage
  • All algorithms studied have less than 1% of error explained by whether student receives free/reduced price lunch


Queiroga et al. (2022) pdf

  • Models predicting secondary school students at risk of failure or dropping out
  • Model was unable to make prediction of student success (F1 score = 0.0) for students not in a social welfare program (higher socioeconomic status)
  • Model had slightly lower AUC ROC (0.52 instead of 0.56) for students not in a social welfare program (higher socioeconomic status)


Permodo et al. (2023) pdf

  • Paper discusses system that predicts probabilities of on-time graduation
  • Prediction is more accurate for low-income students than non-low-income students


Cock et al.(2023) [pdf]

  • Paper investigates biases in models designed to early identify middle school students at risk of failing in flipped-classroom course and open-ended exploration environment (TugLet)
  • Model performs worse for students from school with higher socio-economic status in open-ended environment (FNR=0.73 for higher SES and FNR=0.57 for medium SES).