PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 27, 2026Education Sciences0 citationsOpen Access

Identifying Courses for Targeted Review Using GAP Analysis and Machine Learning

View Full Paper
KJKishore JosephSouthern Illinois University CarbondaleWCWesley C. CalvertSouthern Illinois University CarbondaleOKOliver KeysSouthern Illinois University Carbondale

Key Points

  • The study aims to enhance course evaluation by identifying high-risk courses using machine learning and GAP analysis.
  • An artificial neural network was trained on student data to predict DFWI rates, considering student characteristics.
  • Courses were ranked based on the discrepancy between observed and predicted DFWI rates, indicating areas for improvement.
  • The model's calibration was verified through post-hoc checks to ensure robustness of the ranking.
  • Courses with significant gaps between observed and predicted DFWI rates were prioritized for review as they indicate potential design or instructional flaws.
  • The methodology revealed that traditional DFWI rates might misidentify high-risk courses, affecting resource allocation.
  • Risk-adjusted rankings served as fair indicators for educators when deciding which courses need improvement.

Abstract

We examined the limitations of observed course DFWI rates (% of D and F grades, withdrawals, and incompletes) as evaluation metrics, which obscure student characteristics, course design, instruction, structure, and latent factors, posing challenges in identifying courses that need improvement. An artificial neural network (ANN) was trained using student data to model risk, accounting for variations in student characteristics. The model’s predictions on test data were averaged at the course level, producing expected DFWI rates based on student composition. Courses with high observed DFWI rates and large deviations between observed and predicted DFWI rates (the GAP) were ranked and prioritized for review, as they may reflect aspects of course design, structure, or instructional practices warranting further qualitative evaluation. Our predictions are non-causal, and modeling calibration varies across subgroups; therefore, the original GAP rankings, robust to a post-hoc calibration check, are presented as risk-adjusted indicators for prioritizing courses for further review rather than as definitive causal measures of course quality. Rankings based on observed DFWI rates differ substantially from risk-adjusted GAP rankings, indicating that relying on observed DFWI rates alone may misidentify high-risk courses. Our methodology can assist educators and administrators in making fair resource allocation decisions and improving student outcomes.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Joseph et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a168a4b0c924ddd1bd58ff8https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050806
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper