Cited by 67Online Learning and AnalyticsImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Leveraging Class Balancing Techniques to Alleviate Algorithmic Bias for Predictive Tasks in Education

Sha, Lele, Rakovic, Mladen, Das, Angel, Gasevic, Dragan, Chen, Guanliang·2022·IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies

Abstract

Predictive modeling is a core technique used in tackling various tasks in learning analytics research, e.g., classifying educational forum posts, predicting learning performance, and identifying at-risk students. When applying a predictive model, it is often treated as the first priority to improve its prediction accuracy as much as possible. Class balancing, which aims to adjust the unbalanced data samples of different class labels before using them as input to train a predictive model, has been widely regarded as a powerful method for boosting prediction accuracy. However, its impact on algorithmic bias remains largely unexplored, i.e., whether the use of class balancing methods would alleviate or amplify the differentiated prediction accuracy received by different groups of students (e.g., female versus male). To fill this gap, our study selected three representative predictive tasks as the testbed, based on which we 1) applied two well known metrics (i.e., hardness bias and distribution bias) to measure data characteristics to which algorithmic bias might be attributed; and 2) investigated the impact of a total of eleven class balancing techniques on prediction fairness. Through extensive analysis and evaluation, we found that class balancing techniques, in general, tended to improve predictive fairness between different groups of students. Furthermore, class balancing techniques (e.g., SMOTE and ADASYN), which add samples to the minority group (i.e., oversampling) can enhance the predictive accuracy of the minority group while not negatively affecting the majority group. Consequently, both fairness and accuracy can be improved by applying these oversampling class balancing methods. All data and code used in this study are publicly accessible viahttps://github.com/lsha49/FairCBT.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tlt.2022.3196278

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Using sampling strategies, such as balancing demographic distribution, has been found as an effective approach to improve both model fairness and accuracy.

    “Specifically, using sampling strategies, such as balancing demographic distribution, has been found as an effective approach to improve both model fairness and accuracy (Sha, Li, Gasevic, & Chen, 2022;Sha, Raković, Das, et al., 2022).”

    From Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as Sha, Li, Gasevic, & Chen, 2022

  • Using sampling strategies, such as balancing demographic distribution, has been found as an effective approach to improve both model fairness and accuracy.

    “Specifically, using sampling strategies, such as balancing demographic distribution, has been found as an effective approach to improve both model fairness and accuracy (Sha, Li, Gasevic, & Chen, 2022;Sha, Raković, Das, et al., 2022).”

    From Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as Sha, Raković, Das, et al., 2022

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 68 · Cited by 67

Authors
Sha, L., Rakovic, M., Das, A., Gasevic, D., & Chen, G.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Centre for Learning Analytics, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
  • Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies
Published
2022-08-01
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
481-492
ISSN
  • 1939-1382 (ISSN-L)
  • 2372-0050
OpenAlex
W4289792687
Cited by
67
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 11
FWCI
9.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
Monash University (30074)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
data balancing, algorithmic bias, oversampling, SMOTE, ADASYN, learning analytics, at-risk student identification, learning outcome prediction, distribution bias

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