ArticleScientific reports2025
Development of a prediction model for student teaching satisfaction based on 10 machine learning algorithms.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Educational data mining has become an effective tool for exploring the hidden relationships in educational data and predicting students' academic performance. Educational evaluation is an important part of the teaching process, and the traditional evaluation methods have problems such as high subjectivity and low efficiency. The advancement of machine learning technology has led to an increasing interest in data-driven methods for evaluating student teaching. This study utilizes a dataset pertaining to student evaluations from Turkey to apply and compare ten machine learning algorithms, namely Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), Naive Bayes (NB), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Neural Networks Algorithm (Nnet), Flexible Discriminant Analysis (FDA), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Classification and Regression Trees (CART), Sparse Linear Discriminant Analysis (SLDA), and AdaBoost (ADA), in predicting student satisfaction ratings. The findings indicate that the SVM algorithm yielded the most favorable results, with performance metrics including Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), Precision, Recall, F1 Score and Standard Error (SE) recorded at 0.9765, 0.9887, 0.9789, 0.9891, 0.9789, 0.9765, 0.9777, and 0.0042, respectively. Furthermore, the SVM model's predictive outcomes were elucidated by applying the SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) framework. Finally, we developed the Shiny application for online prediction of learning effect satisfaction, which can provide educators with a scientific basis for evaluation and technical support for personalized teaching and curriculum optimization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.