Relationship Between Student Engagement and Performance in E-Learning Environment Using Association Rules
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of e-learning has emerged as a topic of interest in academia due to the increased ease of accessing the Internet using using smart-phones and wireless devices. One of the challenges facing e-learning platforms is how to keep students motivated and engaged. Moreover, it is also crucial to identify the students that might need help in order to make sure their academic performance doesn't suffer. To that end, this paper tries to investigate the relationship between student engagement and their academic performance. Apriori association rules algorithm is used to derive a set of rules that relate student engagement to academic performance. Experimental results' analysis done using confidence and lift metrics show that a positive correlation exists between students' engagement level and their academic performance in a blended e-learning environment. In particular, it is shown that higher engagement often leads to better academic performance. This cements the previous work that linked engagement and academic performance in traditional classrooms.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it