EDUCATIONAL DATA MINING APPROACH FOR ENGINEERING GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Curriculum improvement and graduate attributes assessments have become recently a serious issue for many Canadian engineering schools. Collecting assessment data concerning graduate attributes and the students’ learning is an important step of curriculum evaluation and the continuous improvement process. To be successful, this improvement process needs appropriate methods and tools for data analysis.Recent developments in the field of Psychometrics and Educational Data Mining (EDM) provide multidimensional item response models able to take into account student and curriculum attributes as parameters. The primary intent of these new models is to predict student successes based on students past performance and the assessment map underlying the tests they completed.We demonstrate in this paper that these models can also be used to analyze the assessment map. In the psychometric and Educational Data mining literature, assessment maps are usually represented as a parameter that associates items to competencies in a matrix called Q-matrix. This concept draws its origins from the Rule-Space Model that was introduced in the eighties to statistically classify student item responses into a set of ideal response patterns associated to different cognitive skills.A method based on the Additive Factor Model has been successfully implemented to analyse the Q-matrix corresponding to the assessment maps used in the graduate assessment process. The results of 17 volunteering anonymous students completing 36 courses at the Université de Moncton between winter 2010 and fall 2015 semesters was analysed with our method. Results obtained provided interesting and useful information regarding the assessment map and the overall assessment process that are presented and discussed in this paper.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".