Population validity for educational data mining models: A case study in affect detection
Abstract
Information and communication technology ( ICT )‐enhanced research methods such as educational data mining ( EDM ) have allowed researchers to effectively model a broad range of constructs pertaining to the student, moving from traditional assessments of knowledge to assessment of engagement, meta‐cognition, strategy and affect. The automated detection of these constructs allows EDM researchers to develop intervention strategies that can be implemented either by the software or the teacher. It also allows for secondary analyses of the construct, where the detectors are applied to a data set that is much larger than one that could be analyzed by more traditional methods. However, in many cases, the data used to develop EDM models are collected from students who may not be representative of the broader populations who are likely to use ICT . In order to use EDM models (automated detectors) with new populations, their generalizability must be verified. In this study, we examine whether detectors of affect remain valid when applied to new populations. Models of four educationally relevant affective states were constructed based on data from urban, suburban and rural students using ASSIST ments software for middle school mathematics in the Northeastern U nited S tates. We found that affect detectors trained on a population drawn primarily from one demographic grouping do not generalize to populations drawn primarily from the other demographic groupings, even though those populations might be considered part of the same national or regional culture. Models constructed using data from all three subpopulations are more applicable to students in those populations than those trained on a single group, but still do not achieve ideal population validity—the ability to generalize across all subgroups. In particular, models generalize better across urban and suburban students than rural students. These findings have important implications for data collection efforts, validation techniques, and the design of interventions that are intended to be applied at scale.
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?
If particular learner subpopulations or educational contexts are overrepresented in datasets used to train and evaluate models offline, the resulting models may encode associations that fail to generalize to other learners and contexts, and which may even cause harm if deployed in these contexts.
“If particular learner subpopulations or educational contexts are overrepresented in datasets used to train and evaluate models offline, the resulting models may encode associations that fail to generalize to other learners and contexts, and which may even cause harm if deployed in these contexts (Ocumpaugh”
From Equity and Artificial Intelligence in Education: Will "AIEd" Amplify or Alleviate Inequities in Education? (2021) · cites this paper as Ocumpaugh, Baker, Gowda, Heffernan, & Heffernan, 2014
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9 · Cited by 993 · see citing works
Self-citationThe life cycle of large language models in education: A framework for understanding sources of bias
Lee, J., Hicke, Y., Yu, R., Brooks, C., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13505 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Should learning analytics models include sensitive attributes? Explaining the why
Deho, O. B., Joksimovic, S., Li, J., Zhan, C., Liu, J., & Liu, L. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2022.3226474 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Holstein, K., & Doroudi, S. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.12920 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ocumpaugh, J., Baker, R., Gowda, S., Heffernan, N., & Heffernan, C.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ocumpaugh, Jaclyn
- Venue
- British Journal of Educational Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-04
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 487-501
- ISSN
- 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8535
- OpenAlex
- W1918776538
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 7
- FWCI
- 21.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Keywords
- affect recognition, educational data mining, generalizability, urban-rural differences, suburban students, rural students, ASSISTments, junior high school mathematics, affective states, student engagement, intervention design
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