Difference between revisions of "Parental Educational Background"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
* 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 first-generation students who are studying in person | * Whether the socio-demographic information was included or not, the model showed worse accuracy and true negative rates for first-generation students who are studying in person | ||
* The model showed better recall for first-generation students | * The model showed better recall for first-generation students, especially for those studying in person | ||
Revision as of 09:14, 18 May 2022
Kai et al. (2017) pdf
- Models predicting student retention in an online college program
- J-48 decision trees achieved much higher Kappa and AUC for students whose parents did not attend college than those whose parents did
- J-Rip decision rules achieved much higher Kappa and AUC for students whose parents did not attended college than those whose parents did
Yu et al. (2020) pdf
- Models predicting undergraduate course grades and average GPA
- First-generation college students were inaccurately predicted to get lower course grade and average GPA
- Fairness of models improved with the inclusion of 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 first-generation students who are studying in person
- The model showed better recall for first-generation students, especially for those studying in person