Paper detail

Extending Machine Learning to Predict Unbalanced Physics Course Outcomes

Machine learning algorithms have recently been used to classify students as those likely to receive an A or B or students likely to receive a C, D, or F in a physics class. The performance metrics used in that study become unreliable when the outcome variable is substantially unbalanced. This study seeks to further explored the classification of students who will receive a C, D, and F and extend those methods to predicting whether a student will receive a D or F. The sample used for this work ($N=7184$) is substantially unbalanced with only 12\% of the students receiving a D or F. Applying the same methods as the previous study produced a classifier that was very inaccurate, classifying only 20\% of the D or F cases correctly. This study will focus on the random forest machine learning algorithm. By adjusting the random forest decision threshold, the correct classification rate of the D or F outcome rose to 46\%. This study also investigated the previous finding that demographic variables such as gender, underrepresented minority status, and first generation status had low variable importance for predicting class outcomes. Downsampling revealed that this was not the result of the underrepresentation of these students. An optimized classification model was constructed which predicted the D and F outcome with 46\% accuracy and C, D, and F outcome with 69\% accuracy; the accuracy of prediction of these outcomes is called "sensitivity" in the machine learning literature. Substantial variation was detected when this classification model was applied to predict the C, D, or F outcome for underrepresented demographic groups with 61\% sensitivity for women, 67\% for underrepresented minority students, and 78\% for first-generation students. Similar variation was observed for the D and F outcome.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.