Difference between revisions of "Socioeconomic Status"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(10 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Yu et al. (2021) [https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3430895.3460139 pdf] | Yu et al. (2021) [https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3430895.3460139 pdf] | ||
*Models predicting college dropout for students in residential and fully online program | *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 students with greater financial needs | *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 | *The model showed better recall for students with greater financial needs, especially for those studying in person | ||
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 | |||
* 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) [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-78292-4_21 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) [https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/13/9/401 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) [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).