Predicting Instructor Performance Using Data Mining Techniques in Higher Education
Open accessAbstract
Data mining applications are becoming a more common tool in understanding and solving educational and administrative problems in higher education. In general, research in educational mining focuses on modeling student's performance instead of instructors' performance. One of the common tools to evaluate instructors' performance is the course evaluation questionnaire to evaluate based on students' perception. In this paper, four different classification techniques - decision tree algorithms, support vector machines, artificial neural networks, and discriminant analysis - are used to build classifier models. Their performances are compared over a data set composed of responses of students to a real course evaluation questionnaire using accuracy, precision, recall, and specificity performance metrics. Although all the classifier models show comparably high classification performances, C5.0 classifier is the best with respect to accuracy, precision, and specificity. In addition, an analysis of the variable importance for each classifier model is done. Accordingly, it is shown that many of the questions in the course evaluation questionnaire appear to be irrelevant. Furthermore, the analysis shows that the instructors' success based on the students' perception mainly depends on the interest of the students in the course. The findings of this paper indicate the effectiveness and expressiveness of data mining models in course evaluation and higher education mining. Moreover, these findings may be used to improve the measurement instruments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Agaoglu (2016) found, through using four different classification techniques, that many questions in the evaluation questionnaire were irrelevant.
“with Agaoglu (2016) finding, through using four different classification techniques, that many questions in the evaluation questionnaire were irrelevant.”
From Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? (2019) · cites this paper as Agaoglu (2016)
Cites
The Strength of Weak Learnability
Schapire, R. E. (1990) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00116037 · Cited by 4,600 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 · Cited by 7,242 · see citing works
“…course evaluations (Agaoglu, 2016; Ahmad & Rashid, 2016; DeCarlo & Rizk, 2010; Gutierrez, Canul-Reich, Ochoa Zezzatti, Margain, & Ponce, 2018), with Agaoglu (2016) finding, through using four different classification techniques, that many questions in the evaluation questionnaire were irrelevant.”
MethodArtificial Intelligence in Education: A Systematic Literature Review
Wang, S., Wang, F., Zhu, Z., Wang, J., Tran, T., & Du, Z. (2024) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124167 · Cited by 977 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence developments in medical education: a conceptual and practical framework
Masters, K. (2020) · MedEdPublish · doi:10.15694/mep.2020.000239.1 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
- Authors
- Agaoglu, M.
- ORCID
- Agaoglu, Mustafa
- Venue
- IEEE Access
- Published
- 2016
- Volume
- 4
- Pages
- 2379-2387
- ISSN
- 2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2373555655
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 16.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- IEEE Access (publishedVersion)
- Dspace Repository (Marmara Üniversitesi) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Dspace Repository (Marmara Üniversitesi) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Technology and Pedagogy
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining and Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- course evaluation questionnaire, student perceptions, educational data mining, C5.0 decision tree, support vector machine, artificial neural networks, discriminant analysis, feature importance analysis, scale development
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review