Search for: All records

Algorithmic bias research often evaluates models in terms of traditional demographic categories (e.g., U.S. Census), but these categories may not capture nuanced, context-dependent identities relevant to learning. This study evaluates four affect detectors (boredom, confusion, engaged concentration, and frustration) developed for an adaptive math learning system. Metrics for algorithmic fairness (AUC, weighted F1, MADD) show subgroup differences across several categories that emerged from a free-response social identity survey (Twenty Statements Test; TST), including both those that mirror demographic categories (i.e., race and gender) as well as novel categories (i.e., Learner Identity, Interpersonal Style, and Sense of Competence). For demographic categories, the confusion detector performs better for boys than for girls and underperforms for West African students. Among novel categories, biases are found related to learner identity (boredom, engaged concentration, and confusion) and interpersonal style (confusion), but not for sense of competence. Results highlight the importance of using contextually grounded social identities to evaluate bias. 

Students' reading ability affects their outcomes in learning software even outside of reading education, such as in math education, which can result in unexpected and inequitable outcomes. We analyze an adaptive learning software using Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT) to understand how the fairness of the software is impacted when reading ability is not modeled. We tested BKT model fairness by comparing two years of data from 8,549 students who were classified as either "emerging" or "non-emerging" readers (i.e., a measure of reading ability). We found that while BKT was unbiased on average in terms of equal predictive accuracy across groups, specific skills within the adaptive learning software exhibited bias related to reading level. Additionally, there were differences between the first-answer mastery rates of the emerging and non-emerging readers (M=.687 and M=.776, difference CI=[0.075, 0.095]), indicating that emerging reader status is predictive of mastery. Our findings demonstrate significant group differences in BKT models regarding reading ability, exhibiting that it is important to consider—and perhaps even model—reading as a separate skill that differentially influences students' outcomes."]} 

Adaptive learning systems are increasingly common in U.S. classrooms, but it is not yet clear whether their positive impacts are realized equally across all students. This study explores whether nuanced identity categories from open-ended self-reported data are associated with outcomes in an adaptive learning system for secondary mathematics. As a measure of impact of these social identity data, we correlate student responses for 3 categories: race and ethnicity, gender, and learning identity—a category combining student status and orientation toward learning—and total lessons completed in an adaptive learning system over one academic year. Results show the value of emergent and novel identity categories when measuring student outcomes, as learning identity was positively correlated with mathematics outcomes across two statistical tests. 

Educational data mining has allowed for large improvements in educational outcomes and understanding of educational processes. However, there remains a constant tension between educational data mining advances and protecting student privacy while using educational datasets. Publicly available datasets have facilitated numerous research projects while striving to preserve student privacy via strict anonymization protocols (e.g., k-anonymity); however, little is known about the relationship between anonymization and utility of educational datasets for downstream educational data mining tasks, nor how anonymization processes might be improved for such tasks. We provide a framework for strictly anonymizing educational datasets with a focus on improving downstream performance in common tasks such as student outcome prediction. We evaluate our anonymization framework on five diverse educational datasets with machine learning-based downstream task examples to demonstrate both the effect of anonymization and our means to improve it. Our method improves downstream machine learning accuracy versus baseline data anonymization by 30.59%, on average, by guiding the anonymization process toward strategies that anonymize the least important information while leaving the most valuable information intact.