Difference between revisions of "Gender: Male/Female"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Anderson et al. (2019) [https://www.upenn.edu/learninganalytics/ryanbaker/EDM2019_paper56.pdf pdf] | Anderson et al. (2019) [https://www.upenn.edu/learninganalytics/ryanbaker/EDM2019_paper56.pdf pdf] | ||
* Models predicting six-year college graduation | * 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) [[https://www.upenn.edu/learninganalytics/ryanbaker/LAK_PAPER97_CAMERA.pdf pdf]] | Gardner, Brooks and Baker (2019) [[https://www.upenn.edu/learninganalytics/ryanbaker/LAK_PAPER97_CAMERA.pdf pdf]] |
Revision as of 17:42, 22 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
- Fairly 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]
- Model predicting college course grade of median or above
- Unmodified algorithm, before correction, performed worse for male students than for female students
Yu et al. (2020) [pdf]
- Model predicting undergraduate course grades and average GPA
- female students were generally inaccurately predicted to perform better than male students
Yu and colleagues (2021) [pdf]
- Model predicting college dropout
- Worse true negative rates for male students, but somewhat better recall for male students taking courses in-person