Using Machine Learning to Explore the Relation Between Student Engagement and Student Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engagement in learning activities is an important factor that affects student performance in education. According to research, student engagement involves the degree of passion, interest and attention that they exhibit in their educational environment. In the traditional learning system, educators encourage students to engage in their learning activities through various teaching strategies such as making them pay attention, take notes, ask questions and participate actively in the learning processes. Sometimes, educators call on a specific student to answer a question as a means of encouraging the student to participate in learning processes. Nowadays, engagement strategies for learning are changing, especially with the use of technology-enhanced learning systems (TELS) in education. As a result, improving the engagement level of students in online learning environments remains an open research question that needs to be explored. This research is part of a preliminary study on discovering ways of increasing student engagement in an online learning system through data-driven interventions. Student engagement in this research is determined using objective data (activity logs of a specific undergraduate course in a TELS). Activity log is unbiased data and a reflection of students' actual learning behaviours (uncontrolled). In this study, we mined the log of students' learning activities from a TELS used for an undergraduate course to explore differences between students' learning behaviours as they relate to their engagement level and academic performance (measured in terms of final grade points in a course). We employed supervised (Random Forest) and unsupervised (Clustering) machine learning approaches in exploring the relations. The approaches identified an interesting pattern on student engagement and show that engagement and assessment scores are good predictors of student academic performance. Assessment scores are measured with results of quizzes and assignments performed by the students in the TELS, while academic performance is measured with the final grade of the student in the course. The implications of our findings 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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".