Exploring the Value of Different Data Sources for Predicting Student Performance in Multiple CS Courses
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
A number of recent studies in computer science education have explored the value of various data sources for early prediction of students' overall course performance. These data sources include responses to clicker questions, prerequisite knowledge, instrumented student IDEs, quizzes, and assignments. However, these data sources are often examined in isolation or in a single course. Which data sources are most valuable, and does course context matter? To answer these questions, this study collected student grades on prerequisite courses, Peer Instruction clicker responses, online quizzes, and assignments, from five courses (over 1000 students) across the CS curriculum at two institutions. A trend emerges suggesting that for upper-division courses, prerequisite grades are most predictive; for introductory programming courses, where no prerequisite grades were available, clicker responses were the most predictive. In concert, prerequisites and clicker responses generally provide highly accurate predictions early in the term, with assignments and online quizzes sometimes providing incremental improvements. Implications of these results for both researchers and practitioners are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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