Difference between revisions of "Black/African-American Learners in North America"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Yu and colleagues (2021) [[https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3430895.3460139 pdf]] | Yu and colleagues (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 protected attributed were included or not, the models had worse true negative rates | * Whether the protected attributed were included or not, the models had worse true negative rates but better recall for underrepresented minority (URM) students, in residential and online programs. | ||
* The model was less accurate for URM students studying in residential program. | * The model was less accurate for URM students studying in residential program. | ||
Revision as of 20:46, 22 March 2022
Kai et al. (2017) pdf
- Models predicting student retention in an online college program
- J48 decision trees achieved much lower Kappa and AUC for Black students than White students
- JRip decision rules achieved almost identical Kappa and AUC for Black students and White 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 African-American students, while other models (particularly Logistic Regression and Rawlsian Fairness) performed far worse
- The level of bias was inconsistent across courses, with MCCM prediction showing the least bias for Psychology and the greatest bias for Computer Science
Lee and Kizilcec (2020) [pdf]
- Models predicting college success (or median grade or above)
- Random forest algorithms performed significantly worse for underrepresented minority students (URM; American Indian, Black, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Multicultural) than non-URM students (White and Asian)
- 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
- Black students were inaccurately predicted to perform worse for both short-term and long-term
- The fairness of models improved when either click or a combination of click and survey data, and not institutional data, was included 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 underrepresented minority (URM) students, in residential and online programs.
- The model was less accurate for URM students studying in residential program.
Ramineni & Williamson (2018) [pdf]
- Revised automated scoring engine for assessing GSE essay
- Relative weakness in content and organization by African American test takers resulted in lower scores than Chinese peers who wrote longer.