Machine Learning Classifiers Do Not Improve the Prediction of Academic Risk: Evidence from Australia

Sarah Cornell-Farrow and Robert Garrard ()

Papers from arXiv.org

Abstract: 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 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 ($n=1.2$ million) containing primary and middle school performance on a standardized test given annually to Australian students. 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, even in a large-$n$ setting.

Date: 2018-07, Revised 2020-01
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-big, nep-edu and nep-ure
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.07215 Latest version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

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 ().