Educational data mining: A tutorial for the rattle package in R
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educational data mining (EDM) has been a rapidly growing research field over the last decade and enabled researchers to discover patterns and trends in education with more sophisticated methods. EDM offers promising solutions to complex educational problems. Given the rapid increase in the availability of big data in education and software programs to analyze big data, the demand for user-friendly, free software programs to implement EDM methods also continues to increase. The R programming language has become a popular environment for data mining due to its availability and flexibility. The rattle package in R contains a set of functions to implement data mining with a graphical user interface. This study demonstrates three widely used data mining algorithms (classification and regression tree, random forest, and support vector machine) in EDM using real data from the 2015 administration of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). First, a brief introduction to EDM is provided along with the description of the selected data mining algorithms. Then, how to perform data mining analysis using the rattle’s graphical user interface is demonstrated. The study concludes by comparing the results of the selected data mining algorithms and highlighting how those algorithms can be utilized in the context of educational research.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".