Using machine learning to predict student science achievement based on science curriculum type in TIMSS 2019
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most educational systems use either an integrated or a separated science curriculum. However, it is unclear which of these science curricula benefits students more author and existing research provides insufficient information about the implementation details of the curriculum employed. Therefore, this study compares the effects of two science curricula on students’ science literacy, drawing on socio-ecological theory and employing educational data mining techniques. Results from Grade 8 Science students in 44 countries sampled in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2019 showed that (1) the integrated curricula benefitted students marginally more than the separated curricula; (2) curriculum type was not essential in directly predicting students’ academic performance; and (3) random forest outperformed linear regression, lasso regression, decision trees, and neural networks in predicting student science achievement. This study advances our understanding of the predictors of student science performance, demonstrates that machine learning techniques can be applied successfully to examine curriculum effects, and provides directions for implementing integrated science curricula.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it