Scale up predictive models for early detection of at-risk students: a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to investigate the feasibility of developing general predictive models for using the learning management system (LMS) data to predict student performances in various courses. The authors focused on examining three practical but important questions: are there a common set of student activity variables that predict student performance in different courses? Which machine-learning classifiers tend to perform consistently well across different courses? Can the authors develop a general model for use in multiple courses to predict student performance based on LMS data? Design/methodology/approach Three mandatory undergraduate courses with large class sizes were selected from three different faculties at a large Western Canadian University, namely, faculties of science, engineering and education. Course-specific models for these three courses were built and compared using data from two semesters, one for model building and the other for generalizability testing. Findings The investigation has led the authors to conclude that it is not desirable to develop a general model in predicting course failure across variable courses. However, for the science course, the predictive model, which was built on data from one semester, was able to identify about 70% of students who failed the course and 70% of students who passed the course in another semester with only LMS data extracted from the first four weeks. Originality/value The results of this study are promising as they show the usability of LMS for early prediction of student course failure, which has the potential to provide students with timely feedback and support in higher education institutions.
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 | 0.016 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".