Machine Learning-Based App for Self-Evaluation of Teacher-Specific Instructional Style and Tools
Open accessAbstract
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
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?
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).”
From Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? (2019) · cites this paper as Duzhin & Gustafsson, 2018
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
“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).”
MethodProactive and reactive engagement of artificial intelligence methods for education: a review
Mallik, S., & Gangopadhyay, A. (2023) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1151391 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Hahn, M. G., Navarro, S. M. B., De La Fuente Valentin, L., & Burgos, D. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3100890 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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