Difference between revisions of "At-risk/Dropout/Stopout/Graduation Prediction"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
Kai et al. (2017) [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596601.pdf pdf] | Kai et al. (2017) [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596601.pdf pdf] | ||
* Models predicting student retention in an online college program | * 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 | * J-Rip decision rules achieved much higher Kappa and AUC for students whose parents did not attended college than those whose parents did | ||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
Yu et al. (2021) [https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3430895.3460139 pdf] | Yu et al. (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 | ||
* The | * The model showed better recall for students who are under-represented minority (URM; not White or Asian), male, first-generation, or with greater financial needs, especially if they are studying in person | ||
* Whether the socio-demographic information was included or not, the model showed worse accuracy and true negative rates for residential students who are under-represented minority (URM; not White or Asian), male, first-generation, or with greater financial needs | |||
* | * Both accuracy and true negative rates were better for students who are first-generation, or with greater financial needs if they were studying online | ||
* |
Revision as of 09:37, 18 May 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
- J48 decision trees achieved significantly lower Kappa but higher AUC for male students than female students
- JRip decision rules achieved almost identical Kappa and AUC for Black students and White students
- JRip decision trees 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 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
- 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 Latino students when Decision Tree and Random Forest yielded was used
- White students had higher false positive rates across all models, Decision Tree, SVM, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and SGD
- False negatives rates were greater for male students than female students when SVM, Logistic Regression, and SGD were used
Christie et al. (2019) pdf
- Models predicting student's high school dropout
- The decision trees showed little difference in AUC among White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander.
- The decision trees showed very minor differences in AUC between female and male students
Gardner, Brooks and Baker (2019) [pdf]
- Model predicting MOOC dropout, specifically through slicing analysis
- Some algorithms performed worse for female students than male students, particularly in courses with 45% or less male presence
Baker et al. (2020) [pdf]
- Model predicting student graduation and SAT scores for military-connected students
- For prediction of graduation, algorithms applying across population resulted an AUC of 0.60, degrading from their original performance of 70% or 71% to chance.
- For prediction of SAT scores, algorithms applying across population resulted in a Spearman's ρ of 0.42 and 0.44, degrading a third from their original performance to chance.
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. (2021) pdf
- Models predicting college dropout for students in residential and fully online program
- The model showed better recall for students who are under-represented minority (URM; not White or Asian), male, first-generation, or with greater financial needs, especially if they are studying in person
- Whether the socio-demographic information was included or not, the model showed worse accuracy and true negative rates for residential students who are under-represented minority (URM; not White or Asian), male, first-generation, or with greater financial needs
- Both accuracy and true negative rates were better for students who are first-generation, or with greater financial needs if they were studying online