Using Predictive Analytics to Track Students: Evidence from a Seven-College Experiment

Peter Bergman, E. Kopko, Julio Rodriguez
{"title":"Using Predictive Analytics to Track Students: Evidence from a Seven-College Experiment","authors":"Peter Bergman, E. Kopko, Julio Rodriguez","doi":"10.1257/rct.7827","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Tracking is widespread in U.S. education. In post-secondary education alone, at least 71% of colleges use a test to track students. However, there are concerns that the most frequently used college placement exams lack validity and reliability, and unnecessarily place students from under-represented groups into remedial courses. While recent research has shown that tracking can have positive effects on student learning, inaccurate placement has consequences: students face misaligned curricula and must pay tuition for remedial courses that do not bear credits toward graduation. We develop an alternative system to place students that uses predictive analytics to combine multiple measures into a placement instrument. Compared to colleges’ existing placement tests, the algorithm is more predictive of future performance. We then conduct an experiment across seven colleges to evaluate the algorithm’s effects on students. Placement rates into college-level courses increased substantially without reducing pass rates. Adjusting for multiple testing, algorithmic placement generally, though not always, narrowed gaps in college placement rates and remedial course taking across demographic groups. A detailed cost analysis shows that the algorithmic placement system is socially efficient: it saves costs for students while increasing college credits earned, which more than offsets increased costs for colleges. Costs could be reduced with improved data digitization as opposed to entering data by hand.","PeriodicalId":217784,"journal":{"name":"CESifo: Economics of Digitization (Topic)","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CESifo: Economics of Digitization (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.7827","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Tracking is widespread in U.S. education. In post-secondary education alone, at least 71% of colleges use a test to track students. However, there are concerns that the most frequently used college placement exams lack validity and reliability, and unnecessarily place students from under-represented groups into remedial courses. While recent research has shown that tracking can have positive effects on student learning, inaccurate placement has consequences: students face misaligned curricula and must pay tuition for remedial courses that do not bear credits toward graduation. We develop an alternative system to place students that uses predictive analytics to combine multiple measures into a placement instrument. Compared to colleges’ existing placement tests, the algorithm is more predictive of future performance. We then conduct an experiment across seven colleges to evaluate the algorithm’s effects on students. Placement rates into college-level courses increased substantially without reducing pass rates. Adjusting for multiple testing, algorithmic placement generally, though not always, narrowed gaps in college placement rates and remedial course taking across demographic groups. A detailed cost analysis shows that the algorithmic placement system is socially efficient: it saves costs for students while increasing college credits earned, which more than offsets increased costs for colleges. Costs could be reduced with improved data digitization as opposed to entering data by hand.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用预测分析来跟踪学生:来自七所大学实验的证据
跟踪在美国教育中很普遍。仅在高等教育领域,至少71%的大学使用考试来跟踪学生。然而,有人担心,最常用的大学分班考试缺乏有效性和可靠性,不必要地将来自代表性不足群体的学生送入补习班。虽然最近的研究表明,跟踪可以对学生的学习产生积极影响,但不准确的位置也会产生后果:学生们面临着不一致的课程,必须为不计入毕业学分的补习课程支付学费。我们开发了一个替代系统来安置学生,该系统使用预测分析将多个措施结合到一个安置工具中。与大学现有的分班考试相比,该算法更能预测未来的表现。然后,我们在七所大学进行了一项实验,以评估该算法对学生的影响。大学水平课程的录取率在不降低通过率的情况下大幅提高。针对多重测试进行调整后,算法分班总体上(尽管并非总是如此)缩小了不同人口群体在大学分班率和补习课程上的差距。详细的成本分析表明,算法分班系统具有社会效率:它为学生节省了成本,同时增加了获得的大学学分,这远远抵消了大学增加的成本。与手工输入数据相比,改进数据数字化可以降低成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Impact of Roaming Regulation on Revenues and Prices of Mobile Operators in the EU Selling Cross-Border in Online Markets: The Impact of the Ban on Geoblocking Strategies Does Telecommuting Reduce Commuting Emissions? The Impact of the German 'DEAL' on Competition in the Academic Publishing Market A Bias-Corrected CD Test for Error Cross-Sectional Dependence in Panel Data Models with Latent Factors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1