Cited by 52Online Learning and AnalyticsEvaluation of Teaching PracticesEducational Technology and Pedagogy

Machine Learning-Based App for Self-Evaluation of Teacher-Specific Instructional Style and Tools

Open access
Duzhin, Fedor, Gustafsson, Anders·2018·Education Sciences

Abstract

Course instructors need to assess the efficacy of their teaching methods, but experiments in education are seldom politically, administratively, or ethically feasible. Quasi-experimental tools, on the other hand, are often problematic, as they are typically too complicated to be of widespread use to educators and may suffer from selection bias occurring due to confounding variables such as students’ prior knowledge. We developed a machine learning algorithm that accounts for students’ prior knowledge. Our algorithm is based on symbolic regression that uses non-experimental data on previous scores collected by the university as input. It can predict 60–70 percent of variation in students’ exam scores. Applying our algorithm to evaluate the impact of teaching methods in an ordinary differential equations class, we found that clickers were a more effective teaching strategy as compared to traditional handwritten homework; however, online homework with immediate feedback was found to be even more effective than clickers. The novelty of our findings is in the method (machine learning-based analysis of non-experimental data) and in the fact that we compare the effectiveness of clickers and handwritten homework in teaching undergraduate mathematics. Evaluating the methods used in a calculus class, we found that active team work seemed to be more beneficial for students than individual work. Our algorithm has been integrated into an app that we are sharing with the educational community, so it can be used by practitioners without advanced methodological training.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/educsci8010007

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?

  • The application of an algorithm to evaluate the impact of teaching methods in a differential equations class found that online homework with immediate feedback was more effective than clickers.

    “The application of an algorithm to evaluate the impact of teaching methods in a differential equations class, found that online homework with immediate feedback was more effective than clickers (Duzhin & Gustafsson, 2018).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duzhin, F., & Gustafsson, A.
Affiliations
Nanyang Technological University (SG)
Corresponding author
Duzhin, Fedor
Venue
Education Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-01-10
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
7
ISSN
2227-7102 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2783147400
Cited by
52
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2
FWCI
6.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Education Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Technology and Pedagogy
Keywords
teaching effectiveness evaluation, symbolic regression, student prior knowledge, non-experimental data, clickers, active learning, team-based learning, ordinary differential equations, calculus, undergraduate mathematics, selection 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