Difference between revisions of "Urbanicity"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* Models predicting classroom discourse properties (e.g. authenticity and uptake) | * Models predicting classroom discourse properties (e.g. authenticity and uptake) | ||
* Model trained on urban students (authenticity: 0.62, uptake: 0.60) performed with similar accuracy when tested on non-urban students (authenticity: 0.62, uptake: 0.62) | * Model trained on urban students (authenticity: 0.62, uptake: 0.60) performed with similar accuracy when tested on non-urban students (authenticity: 0.62, uptake: 0.62) | ||
* Model trained on non-urban (authenticity: 0.61, uptake: 0.59) performed with similar accuracy when tested on urban students (authenticity: 0.60, uptake: 0.63) | * Model trained on non-urban students (authenticity: 0.61, uptake: 0.59) performed with similar accuracy when tested on urban students (authenticity: 0.60, uptake: 0.63) | ||
Revision as of 11:54, 28 March 2022
Ocumpaugh et al. (2014) [pdf]
- Models detecting student affective states (boredom, confusion, engaged concentration, frustration) from the interaction with ASSISTment system
- Detectors generally performed the best for the same subpopulation that they were trained on (average kappa = 0.26, A′ = 0.67), and worse for other subpopulations (average kappa = 0.03 and A′ = 0.52)
- Detectors trained on combined population generally performed better for urban and suburban population (kappa = 0.18, 0.16; A′ = 0.62, 0.66) and not as well for rural population (kappa = 0.06; A′ = 0.54)
Samei et al. (2015) [pdf]
- Models predicting classroom discourse properties (e.g. authenticity and uptake)
- Model trained on urban students (authenticity: 0.62, uptake: 0.60) performed with similar accuracy when tested on non-urban students (authenticity: 0.62, uptake: 0.62)
- Model trained on non-urban students (authenticity: 0.61, uptake: 0.59) performed with similar accuracy when tested on urban students (authenticity: 0.60, uptake: 0.63)