Difference between revisions of "Course Grade and GPA Prediction"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(added Kung & Yu (2020)) |
m |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
* Predicting course grades and later GPA at public U.S. university | * Predicting course grades and later GPA at public U.S. university | ||
* Five algorithms and three metrics (independence, separation, sufficiency) analyzed | * Five algorithms and three metrics (independence, separation, sufficiency) analyzed | ||
* Poorer performance for Latinx students on course grade prediction for all three metrics; | * Poorer performance for Latinx students on course grade prediction for all three metrics; poorer performance for Latinx students on GPA prediction in terms of independence and sufficiency, but not separation | ||
poorer performance for Latinx students on GPA prediction in terms of independence and sufficiency, but not separation | |||
* Poorer performance for first-generation students on course grade prediction for independence and separation, and for some algorithms for GPA prediction as well | * Poorer performance for first-generation students on course grade prediction for independence and separation, and for some algorithms for GPA prediction as well | ||
* Poorer performance for low-income students in several cases, about 1/3 of cases checked | * Poorer performance for low-income students in several cases, about 1/3 of cases checked |
Revision as of 09:53, 13 June 2022
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), for male students than female students
- Random forest algorithms performed significantly worse for male students than female students
- The fairness of the model, namely demographic parity and equality of opportunity, as well as its accuracy, improved after correcting the threshold values from 0.5 to group-specific values
Yu et al. (2020) pdf
- Models predicting undergraduate course grades and average GPA
- Students who are international, first-generation, or from low-income households were inaccurately predicted to get lower course grade and average GPA than their peer, and fairness of models improved with the inclusion of clickstream and survey data
- Female students were inaccurately predicted to achieve greater short-term and long-term success than male students, and fairness of models improved when a combination of institutional and click data was used in the model
Riazy et al. (2020) pdf
- Models predicting course outcome of students in a virtual learning environment (VLE)
- More male students were predicted to pass the course than female students, but this overestimation was fairly small and not consistent across different algorithms
- Among the algorithms, Naive Bayes had the lowest normalized mutual information value and the highest ABROCA value, or differences between the area under curve
- Students with self-declared disability were predicted to pass the course more often
Jiang & Pardos (2021) pdf
- Predicting university course grades using LSTM
- Roughly equal accuracy across racial groups
- Slightly better accuracy (~1%) across racial groups when including race in model
Kung & Yu (2020)
pdf
- Predicting course grades and later GPA at public U.S. university
- Five algorithms and three metrics (independence, separation, sufficiency) analyzed
- Poorer performance for Latinx students on course grade prediction for all three metrics; poorer performance for Latinx students on GPA prediction in terms of independence and sufficiency, but not separation
- Poorer performance for first-generation students on course grade prediction for independence and separation, and for some algorithms for GPA prediction as well
- Poorer performance for low-income students in several cases, about 1/3 of cases checked