4.0 Article

Machine Learning-Based App for Self-Evaluation of Teacher-Specific Instructional Style and Tools

期刊

EDUCATION SCIENCES
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/educsci8010007

关键词

learning analytics; predictive modelling; machine learning; symbolic regression; quasi-experiment; clickers; team-based learning; handwritten homework; online homework

资金

  1. EdeX grant Does team-based learning improve exam scores

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Course instructors need to assess the efficacy of their teaching methods, but experiments in education are seldom politically, administratively, or ethically feasible. Quasi-experimental tools, on the other hand, are often problematic, as they are typically too complicated to be of widespread use to educators and may suffer from selection bias occurring due to confounding variables such as students' prior knowledge. We developed a machine learning algorithm that accounts for students' prior knowledge. Our algorithm is based on symbolic regression that uses non-experimental data on previous scores collected by the university as input. It can predict 60-70 percent of variation in students' exam scores. Applying our algorithm to evaluate the impact of teaching methods in an ordinary differential equations class, we found that clickers were a more effective teaching strategy as compared to traditional handwritten homework; however, online homework with immediate feedback was found to be even more effective than clickers. The novelty of our findings is in the method (machine learning-based analysis of non-experimental data) and in the fact that we compare the effectiveness of clickers and handwritten homework in teaching undergraduate mathematics. Evaluating the methods used in a calculus class, we found that active team work seemed to be more beneficial for students than individual work. Our algorithm has been integrated into an app that we are sharing with the educational community, so it can be used by practitioners without advanced methodological training.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据