Volume 9, Issue 12, December – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14613845

Evaluating Machine Learning Algorithms for

Enhanced Prediction of Student
Academic Performance
Prince Kumar1
ORCID: 0009-0008-9991-7367
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra

Abstract:- This study aims to evaluate and compare the II. LITERATURE REVIEW
predictive performance of decision trees, random forests,
support vector machines, and neural networks in Numerous studies have applied machine learning
forecasting student academic outcomes based on techniques to predict student performance. For instance,
academic and demographic factors. The research utilizes Yadav et al. (2012) utilized decision tree algorithms to classify
a dataset from the UCI Machine Learning Repository, student grades, achieving moderate accuracy. Decision trees
encompassing student performance data from Portuguese are valued for their simplicity and interpretability but are
secondary schools. The results indicate that neural prone to overfitting and may struggle with capturing complex
networks and random forests achieved the highest data relationships.
accuracy rates of 87.4% and 85.6%, respectively,
suggesting their potential for effective educational In contrast, Cortez and Silva (2008) explored neural
analytics and early intervention strategies. These findings networks and support vector machines (SVMs) for predicting
underscore the importance of leveraging machine student success, with neural networks demonstrating higher
learning techniques to enhance educational outcomes precision due to their ability to model non-linear relationships
through targeted support and resource allocation. and interactions among features. However, neural networks
require significant computational resources and may pose
I. INTRODUCTION challenges in interpretability.

Predicting student performance is paramount for Recent advancements in ensemble methods, exemplified
educational institutions striving to enhance academic by random forests (Breiman, 2001), have shown promise in
outcomes and provide targeted support. This study seeks to improving prediction accuracy by combining multiple
answer the question: How can machine learning algorithms decision trees to mitigate overfitting and enhance
enhance the prediction of student academic outcomes based generalization. Ensemble methods are increasingly favored
on demographic and academic factors? By leveraging for their robustness in handling diverse datasets and improving
machine learning techniques, this research aims to contribute model performance.
to the development of predictive tools that assist educators in
identifying at-risk students early and tailoring interventions Additionally, studies like those by Huang and Fang
to meet their specific needs. (2013) have examined SVMs in educational data mining,
highlighting their effectiveness in creating complex decision
The motivation for this research lies in addressing the boundaries in high-dimensional spaces. Nonetheless, SVMs’
persistent challenge of improving student success rates performance can vary significantly based on kernel choice and
through data-driven approaches. By predicting student hyperparameter settings.
outcomes more accurately, educational institutions can
allocate resources effectively, implement timely interventions, Despite the expanding body of research, there remains a
and foster personalized learning experiences. notable gap in comprehensive comparisons across different
machine learning algorithms applied to student performance
While this study focuses on evaluating the efficacy of prediction. This study aims to address this gap by evaluating
decision trees, random forests, support vector machines, and decision trees, random forests, SVMs, and neural networks
neural networks, it acknowledges limitations such as using a standardized dataset and methodology, contributing to
potential biases in the dataset from the UCI Machine a deeper understanding of their comparative effectiveness in
Learning Repository, which may affect the generalizability of educational analytics.
findings to other educational contexts. These limitations
underscore the need for cautious interpretation and further
validation across diverse datasets.

IJISRT24DEC2047 www.ijisrt.com 2581

Volume 9, Issue 12, December – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14613845
III. METHODOLOGY understanding the decision-making processes influencing
student performance.
A. Data Source Description  Support Vector Machines (SVMs): SVMs excel in
The dataset utilized in this study originates from the UCI creating complex decision boundaries in high-
Machine Learning Repository and comprises student dimensional feature spaces, making them suitable for
performance data from two Portuguese secondary schools. predicting student outcomes influenced by diverse
This dataset provides a comprehensive view of academic and academic and demographic factors.
demographic factors influencing student outcomes, including  Neural Networks: Selected for their capability to model
features such as grades from multiple assessment periods, intricate relationships and interactions among variables,
attendance records, and socio-economic backgrounds. neural networks offer superior predictive accuracy but
require careful tuning of hyperparameters and substantial
 Strengths and Limitations: computational resources.
While the dataset offers rich insights into student
performance metrics, its representativeness of broader student  Comparison to Alternatives:
populations beyond Portuguese secondary schools may be While other machine learning algorithms exist, these
limited. Additionally, inherent biases related to data collection four were prioritized due to their established effectiveness in
methods or missing data could influence the generalizability educational analytics, as evidenced by previous research and
of findings. their adaptability to the dataset's characteristics.

B. Data Preprocessing D. Model Training and Evaluation

Each machine learning model underwent rigorous
 Techniques and Rationale: training and evaluation using a structured approach to assess
Data preprocessing involved several crucial steps to its predictive performance. The process included:
ensure dataset quality and model robustness:
 Training and Testing: Models were trained on a
 Handling Missing Values: Missing values were designated training dataset and subsequently evaluated
addressed using imputation techniques such as mean using an independent testing dataset to measure their
imputation for numerical features and mode imputation predictive accuracy under real-world conditions.
for categorical features. This approach minimizes data  Performance Metrics: Key performance metrics used for
loss and maintains dataset integrity, crucial for evaluation included:
maintaining model performance.  Accuracy: The percentage of correctly predicted
 Normalization: Continuous variables, including grades instances, providing an overall measure of model
and attendance records, were normalized to a standard performance.
scale (e.g., z-score normalization). Normalization reduces  Precision: The ratio of true positive predictions to the
biases in model training caused by varying scales across total predicted positive instances, indicating the model's
features, enhancing model convergence and performance. ability to avoid false positives.
 Encoding Categorical Variables: Categorical variables  Recall: The ratio of true positive predictions to all actual
such as gender and parental education levels were positive instances, assessing the model's sensitivity to
encoded using one-hot encoding. This transformation detecting positive cases.
ensures these variables are appropriately represented  F1-score: The harmonic mean of precision and recall,
numerically, enabling machine learning algorithms like offering a balanced assessment of a model's performance
neural networks and SVMs to process them effectively. across precision and recall metrics.

 Impact on Model Performance:  Cross-validation: To ensure robustness and mitigate

Each preprocessing step was chosen to optimize model overfitting, a cross-validation technique was employed.
performance and interpretability. For instance, normalization This method validates model performance by partitioning
ensures that features contribute proportionately to model the dataset into multiple subsets, training the model on
training, while encoding maintains the integrity of categorical different combinations of these subsets, and evaluating its
data essential for capturing socio-economic influences on consistency across various partitions.
student outcomes.  Hyperparameter Tuning: Grid search technique was
utilized for hyperparameter tuning. This systematic
C. Model Selection Rationale approach optimizes model parameters to enhance
performance metrics, ensuring each model operates at its
 Algorithm Suitability: peak efficiency and accuracy.
The selection of decision trees, random forests, SVMs,
and neural networks was driven by their distinct capabilities IV. RESULTS
in handling the complexity and diversity of educational data:
The performance of each machine learning model in
 Decision Trees and Random Forests: These models predicting student performance is summarized in Table 1.
were chosen for their interpretability and ability to capture Neural networks and random forests emerged as the top
non-linear relationships among features, critical for performers across key metrics such as accuracy and F1-score.

IJISRT24DEC2047 www.ijisrt.com 2582

Volume 9, Issue 12, December – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14613845
Table 1 Model Performance Metrics
Models Accuracy Precison Recall F1-score
Decision Trees 78.2% 0.76 0.79 0.77
Random Forests 85.6% 0.83 0.86 0.84
Support Vector Machines 80.1% 0.79 0.80 0.79
Neural Networks 87.4% 0.85 0.88 0.86

 Detailed Analysis  Factors Contributing to Performance Differences

 Decision Trees: Decision trees exhibited moderate  Model Complexity: Neural networks excel in learning
accuracy, achieving 78.2%, with a precision of 0.76 and intricate patterns and interactions within the data due to
recall of 0.79. They showed susceptibility to overfitting, their layered architecture and activation functions,
particularly when not constrained by tree depth. Despite whereas decision trees and SVMs may oversimplify these
this, decision trees remain interpretable, offering insights relationships.
into the factors influencing student performance.  Ensemble Methods: Random forests mitigate overfitting
 Random Forests: Random forests achieved the highest by aggregating predictions from multiple decision trees,
accuracy among all models at 85.6%, with a precision of offering robust performance across diverse datasets
0.83 and recall of 0.86. Their ensemble approach compared to individual decision trees.
effectively mitigated overfitting and handled the dataset’s  Parameter Sensitivity: SVMs’ performance hinges
diversity well, providing robust predictions suitable for heavily on kernel selection and hyperparameter tuning,
educational applications. affecting their adaptability to varying dataset
 Support Vector Machines (SVMs): SVMs demonstrated characteristics and complexities.
reasonable accuracy at 80.1%, with a precision of 0.79
and recall of 0.80. They performed well in high-  Practical Implications
dimensional feature spaces but were sensitive to kernel Implementing predictive models such as neural
selection and required extensive hyperparameter tuning networks and random forests in educational settings can
for optimal results. empower educators and policymakers with actionable
 Neural Networks: Neural networks outperformed other insights for targeted interventions and resource allocation.
models with an accuracy of 87.4%, precision of 0.85, and These models can:
recall of 0.88. Their ability to capture complex non-linear
relationships in the data contributed to their superior  Early Intervention Strategies: Identify at-risk students
performance. However, neural networks demanded early based on predictive analytics, enabling timely
significant computational resources and longer training interventions such as personalized tutoring or counseling.
times.  Resource Allocation: Optimize allocation of educational
resources by predicting student needs and adjusting
 Interpretation support services accordingly.
The results underscore the effectiveness of neural  Curriculum Adaptation: Tailor educational programs
networks and random forests in predicting student and curriculum to individual student strengths and
performance, surpassing decision trees and SVMs in weaknesses identified through predictive modeling.
accuracy and F1-score. These findings suggest that while
decision trees and SVMs offer interpretability and reasonable  Future Research Directions
performance, neural networks and random forests provide Building on the findings of this study, future research
more robust predictive capabilities in educational settings. can explore several avenues to enhance the effectiveness and
Future research should explore optimizations to enhance the applicability of machine learning models in educational
performance and scalability of these models for broader contexts:
implementation in educational analytics and support
strategies.  Dynamic Learning Models: Develop adaptive learning
models that evolve with student progress and changing
V. DISCUSSION educational environments.
 Integration of Additional Data Sources: Incorporate
 Comparative Analysis supplementary data sources such as social and emotional
The performance variations among decision trees, factors to enrich predictive models and improve accuracy.
random forests, support vector machines (SVMs), and neural  Explainable AI in Education: Enhance interpretability
networks highlight nuanced strengths and considerations for of predictive models like neural networks to foster trust
their application in predicting student performance. Neural and understanding among educators and stakeholders.
networks and random forests consistently outperformed  Longitudinal Studies: Conduct longitudinal studies to
decision trees and SVMs in accuracy and F1-score metrics. track student performance over extended periods,
This superior performance can be attributed to their ability to enabling more accurate predictions and insights into long-
capture complex, non-linear relationships inherent in term educational outcomes.
educational data, which decision trees and SVMs may
struggle to model effectively.

IJISRT24DEC2047 www.ijisrt.com 2583

Volume 9, Issue 12, December – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14613845
VI. CONCLUSION REFERENCES

This study evaluated the efficacy of machine learning [1]. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine
algorithms in predicting student performance based on Learning, 45(1), 5-32.
academic and demographic factors. Neural networks and doi:10.1023/A:1010933404324.
random forests emerged as superior models, outperforming [2]. Cortez, P., & Silva, A. M. (2008). Using data mining
decision trees and support vector machines in accuracy and to predict secondary school student performance. In A.
F1-score metrics. These findings underscore the potential of Brito & J. Teixeira (Eds.), Proceedings of 5th FUture
advanced predictive analytics to transform educational BUsiness TEChnology Conference (pp. 5-12). FEUP
practices and enhance student outcomes. Edições.
[3]. Huang, Y. M., & Fang, X. (2013). Application of
 Summary of Findings support vector machines on predicting student
Neural networks demonstrated the highest accuracy of academic performance. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill,
87.4%, leveraging their ability to model complex non-linear J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research
relationships inherent in educational data. Random forests on Educational Communications and Technology (pp.
followed closely with an accuracy of 85.6%, benefiting from 421-430). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-
ensemble techniques that mitigate overfitting and improve 5_36.
generalization. In contrast, decision trees and support vector [4]. Yadav, D., Pal, S., & Thakur, P. (2012). Comparative
machines achieved moderate accuracies of 78.2% and 80.1%, study of data mining algorithms for predicting
respectively, with varying degrees of interpretability and academic performance. International Journal of
sensitivity to hyperparameters. Computer Applications, 52(11), 43-48.
doi:10.5120/8231-2769.
 Implications for Educational Practice [5]. Kumar, A., & Kumar, P. (2018). A comprehensive
Implementing predictive models like neural networks study of machine learning algorithms for predicting
and random forests offers actionable insights for educators student academic performance. International Journal
and policymakers: of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering,
8(12), 82-87.
 Early Intervention Strategies: Identify at-risk students [6]. Kim, J., & Kim, T. (2017). Application of machine
early to implement personalized interventions such as learning algorithms to predict student academic
tutoring or counseling. performance in blended learning environments.
 Resource Allocation: Optimize allocation of educational Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 332-345.
resources by predicting student needs and adjusting [7]. Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ganapathy, S. (2016).
support services accordingly. Predicting academic performance of engineering
 Curriculum Development: Tailor educational programs students using machine learning techniques.
to individual student strengths and weaknesses identified International Journal of Applied Engineering
through predictive analytics, fostering personalized Research, 11(24), 11615-11623.
learning experiences. [8]. Solanki, D., & Shah, P. (2019). A comparative study
of machine learning algorithms for predicting student
 Broader Impact and Future Directions performance. International Journal of Computer
Beyond immediate applications, this study contributes Applications, 182(38), 1-6.
to the broader field of educational research by highlighting doi:10.5120/ijca2019918705.
the transformative potential of machine learning: [9]. Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). Multimodal
learning analytics. In Learning Analytics: From
 Enhanced Decision-Making: Enable data-driven Research to Practice (pp. 95-118). Springer.
decision-making in education to improve student [10]. Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2010). Educational data
retention, graduation rates, and overall academic success. mining: A review of the state of the art. IEEE
 Ethical Considerations: Address ethical implications of Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part
using predictive analytics in education, ensuring fairness C (Applications and Reviews), 40(6), 601-618.
and transparency in model deployment and interpretation. doi:10.1109/TSMCC.2010.2053532
 Continued Innovation: Encourage further research into [11]. Baker, R. S., & Yacef, K. (Eds.). (2009). The State of
dynamic learning models, integration of additional data Educational Data Mining in 2009: A Review and
sources, and development of explainable AI to enhance Future Visions. International Educational Data Mining
model interpretability and stakeholder trust. Society.
[12]. Witten, I. H., Frank, E., Hall, M. A., & Pal, C. J. (2016).
Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and
Techniques (4th ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.
[13]. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009). The
Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining,
Inference, and Prediction (2nd ed.). Springer.

IJISRT24DEC2047 www.ijisrt.com 2584