Machine Learning Classifiers Do Not Improve the Prediction of Academic Risk: Evidence from Australia
Sarah Cornell-Farrow and
Robert Garrard ()
Papers from arXiv.org
Machine learning methods tend to outperform traditional statistical models at prediction. In the prediction of academic achievement, ML models have not shown substantial improvement over linear and logistic regression. So far, these results have almost entirely focused on college achievement, due to the availability of administrative datasets, and have contained relatively small sample sizes by ML standards. In this article we apply popular machine learning models to a large dataset ($n=2.2$ million) containing primary and middle school performance on NAPLAN, a test given annually to all Australian students in grades 3, 5, 7, and 9. We show that machine learning models do not outperform logistic regression for detecting students who will perform in the `below standard' band of achievement upon sitting their next test.
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-big, nep-edu and nep-ure
Date: 2018-07, Revised 2019-02
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.07215 Latest version (application/pdf)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:1807.07215
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators ().