MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072220377 · doi:10.3402/rlt.v20i0.19191

Improving student success using predictive models and data visualisations

2012· article· en· W2072220377 on OpenAlexaff
Alfred Essa, Hanan Ayad

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Learning Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsD2L (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)Psychological interventionAnalyticsLearning analyticsAt-risk studentsComputer sciencePredictive analyticsWorkforceWorkflowMedical educationData scienceMathematics educationPsychologyEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need to educate a competitive workforce is a global problem. In the US, for example, despite billions of dollars spent to improve the educational system, approximately 35% of students never finish high school. The drop rate among some demographic groups is as high as 50–60%. At the college level in the US only 30% of students graduate from 2-year colleges in 3 years or less and approximately 50% graduate from 4-year colleges in 5 years or less. A basic challenge in delivering global education, therefore, is improving student success. By student success we mean improving retention, completion and graduation rates. In this paper we describe a Student Success System (S3) that provides a holistic, analytical view of student academic progress.1 The core of S3 is a flexible predictive modelling engine that uses machine intelligence and statistical techniques to identify at-risk students pre-emptively. S3 also provides a set of advanced data visualisations for reaching diagnostic insights and a case management tool for managing interventions. S3's open modular architecture will also allow integration and plug-ins with both open and proprietary software. Powered by learning analytics, S3 is intended as an end-to-end solution for identifying at-risk students, understanding why they are at risk, designing interventions to mitigate that risk and finally closing the feedback look by tracking the efficacy of the applied intervention.Keywords: predictive models; data visualisation; student performance; risk analytics(Published: 30 August 2012)http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.19191

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Learning TechnologySame topicSoftware System Performance and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207