Closing the Gap? The Ability of Adaptive Learning Courseware to Close Outcome Gaps in Principles of Microeconomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research shows that students who identify as low-income, first-generation, and/or racially diverse disproportionately underperform in college and earn fewer degrees than other students. This study explores the integration of adaptive learning courseware assignments as a tool to help close these outcome gaps and to ensure more equitable learning across diverse student groups. Adaptive learning courseware is an educational technology that requires students to master the same learning objectives but, for each student, the courseware determines the order and timing of content based on how that student interacts with the courseware, thus enabling an individualized learning path for each student. Adaptive learning assignments were implemented in five sections of a highly-enrolled Principles of Microeconomics course at a medium-sized state university in the United States. This study draws from student data (n=581), which includes adaptive learning assignment completion data, detailed exam and final grade data, and institutional demographic data. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses are used to explore if the completion of adaptive learning assignments disproportionately benefited low-income, first-generation, or racially diverse students, thus helping close the gap between students from different backgrounds. Findings include significant evidence that adaptive learning assignment completion was correlated with more exam questions answered correctly by all students, with this correlation being disproportionately stronger for students who identify as being from a minority background and for foundational (easy) exam questions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.053 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".