Student Engagement Level in an e-Learning Environment: Clustering Using K-means
Bibliographic record
Abstract
E-learning platforms and processes face several challenges, among which is the idea of personalizing the e-learning experience and to keep students motivated and engaged. This work is part of a larger study that aims to tackle these two challenges using a variety of machine learning techniques. To that end, this paper proposes the use of k-means algorithm to cluster students based on 12 engagement metrics divided into two categories: interaction-related and effort-related. Quantitative analysis is performed to identify the students that are not engaged who may need help. Three different clustering models are considered: two-level, three-level, and five-level. The considered dataset is the students’ event log of a second-year undergraduate Science course from a North American university that was given in a blended format. The event log is transformed using MATLAB to generate a new dataset representing the considered metrics. Experimental results’ analysis shows that among the considered interaction-related and effort-related metrics, the number of logins and the average duration to submit assignments are the most representative of the students’ engagement level. Furthermore, using the silhouette coefficient as a performance metric, it is shown that the two-level model offers the best performance in terms of cluster separation. However, the three-level model has a similar performance while better identifying students with low engagement levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".