Factors Influencing the Performance of Students in Software Automated Test Tools Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formal software testing education is important for building efficient QA professionals. Various aspects of quality assurance approaches are usually covered in courses for training software testing students. Automated Test Tools is one of the core courses in the software testing post-graduate curriculum due to the high demand for automated testers in the workforce. It is important to understand which factors are affecting student performance in the automated testing course to be able to assist the students early on based on their needs. Various metrics that are considered for predicting student performance in this testing course are student engagement, grades on individual deliverables, and prerequisite courses. This study identifies the impact of assessing students based on individual vs. group activities, theoretical vs. practical components, and the effect of having taken prerequisite courses in their final grade. To carry out this research, student data was collected from the automated test tools course of a community college-based postgraduate certificate program in software testing. The dataset contained student records from the years 2021 to 2022 and consisted of information from five different semesters. Various machine learning algorithms were applied to develop an effective model for predicting students’ performance in the automated software testing tools course, and finally, important features affecting the students’ performance were identified. The predictive performance model of the automated test tools course that was developed by applying the logistic regression technique, showed the best performance, with an accuracy score of $\mathbf{9 0 \%}$.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".