Assessing the Effectiveness of Student Advice Recommender Agent (SARA): the Case of Automated Personalized Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greer and Mark’s ( 2016 ) paper suggested and reviewed different methods for evaluating the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems such as Propensity score matching. The current study aimed at assessing the effectiveness of automated personalized feedback intervention implemented via the Student Advice Recommender Agent (SARA) in a first-year biology class by means of statistical matching and by reviewing and comparing four different statistical matching methods (i.e., exact matching, nearest neighbor matching using the Mahalanobis distance, propensity score matching, and coarsened exact matching). Data from 1026 (73% female and 27% male) students who took a first-year biology course at a Western Canadian university were used. Two different measures for balance assessment of the matched data (i.e., % of balance improvement and standardized bias) were used to choose the best performing statistical matching method. Nearest neighbor matching using the Mahalanobis distance was found to be the most appropriate method for this study and results showed a statistically significant but small treatment effect for the group who received personalized feedback. Research and practical considerations were discussed and suggestions for future research are provided.
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 | 0.065 | 0.190 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".