A Comparison of Bias Mitigation Techniques for Educational Classification Tasks Using Supervised Machine Learning
-
Published:2024-06-04
Issue:6
Volume:15
Page:326
-
ISSN:2078-2489
-
Container-title:Information
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Information
Author:
Wongvorachan Tarid1ORCID, Bulut Okan2ORCID, Liu Joyce Xinle1ORCID, Mazzullo Elisabetta1ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Measurement, Evaluation, and Data Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2G5, Canada 2. Centre for Research in Applied Measurement and Evaluation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2G5, Canada
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) has become integral in educational decision-making through technologies such as learning analytics and educational data mining. However, the adoption of machine learning-driven tools without scrutiny risks perpetuating biases. Despite ongoing efforts to tackle fairness issues, their application to educational datasets remains limited. To address the mentioned gap in the literature, this research evaluates the effectiveness of four bias mitigation techniques in an educational dataset aiming at predicting students’ dropout rate. The overarching research question is: “How effective are the techniques of reweighting, resampling, and Reject Option-based Classification (ROC) pivoting in mitigating the predictive bias associated with high school dropout rates in the HSLS:09 dataset?" The effectiveness of these techniques was assessed based on performance metrics including false positive rate (FPR), accuracy, and F1 score. The study focused on the biological sex of students as the protected attribute. The reweighting technique was found to be ineffective, showing results identical to the baseline condition. Both uniform and preferential resampling techniques significantly reduced predictive bias, especially in the FPR metric but at the cost of reduced accuracy and F1 scores. The ROC pivot technique marginally reduced predictive bias while maintaining the original performance of the classifier, emerging as the optimal method for the HSLS:09 dataset. This research extends the understanding of bias mitigation in educational contexts, demonstrating practical applications of various techniques and providing insights for educators and policymakers. By focusing on an educational dataset, it contributes novel insights beyond the commonly studied datasets, highlighting the importance of context-specific approaches in bias mitigation.
Reference69 articles.
1. Barocas, S., Hardt, M., and Narayanan, A. (2023). Fairness and Machine Learning: Limitations and Opportunities, MIT Press. 2. Crawford, K. (2024, May 13). The Trouble with Bias. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMym_BKWQzk. 3. Shin, T. (2024, May 13). Real-Life Examples of Discriminating Artificial Intelligence. Towards Data Science. Available online: https://towardsdatascience.com/real-life-examples-of-discriminating-artificial-intelligence-cae395a90070. 4. Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., and Zemel, R. (2012, January 8–10). Fairness through awareness. Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, Cambridge, MA, USA. 5. Chen, G., Rolim, V., Mello, R.F., and Gašević, D. (2020, January 23–27). Let’s shine together!: A comparative study between learning analytics and educational data mining. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, Frankfurt, Germany.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|