Difference between revisions of "Black/African-American Learners in North America"

From Penn Center for Learning Analytics Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 10: Line 10:
* The level of bias was inconsistent across courses, with MCCM prediction showing the least bias for Psychology and the greatest bias for Computer Science
* 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) [[https://arxiv.org/pdf/2007.00088.pdf 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





Revision as of 19:28, 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


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.