A benchmarking study of responsible machine learning models in educational institutions


Abstract

Universities, schools, and other educational institutions are increasingly adopting Machine Learning (ML) for tasks such as student performance prediction and dropout analysis. However, model evaluation is often limited to predictive accuracy, overlooking deployment-critical factors such as interpretability (the ability to understand how and why a model makes decisions), scalability (how well a model handles increasing amounts of data or users), and stability (consistency of results across different data samples). This study proposes a multidimensional benchmarking framework to evaluate five major educational prediction tasks: Student Retention Prediction, Student Performance Prediction, Budget Prediction, University Ranking Prediction, and Student Enrollment Prediction. We are using publicly available datasets and multiple ML models, including Logistic Regression, Linear Regression, RandomForest, XGBoost, and LightGBM. Models are assessed using traditional performance metrics, such as R² (a measure of how well predicted values fit the actual data), RMSE (Root Mean Square Error, a measure of prediction error), MAE (Mean Absolute Error, a measure of average prediction error magnitude), and accuracy (the percentage of correct predictions). We also evaluate SHAP-based interpretability (SHapley Additive exPlanations, a method to explain model outputs), as well as stability, scalability, and data quality. We developed the Educational AI Readiness Index, unifying these dimensions into a score for real-world deployment. Our results show no single model excels universally; optimal models vary by task. XGBoost is best for Retention and Enrollment, Linear Regression for Performance due to scalability, and LightGBM scores highest for Ranking and Budget Prediction. SHAP-based analysis shows that high accuracy does not guarantee stable model attributions, exposing deployment risks that are missed by accuracy-only assessments. The University Ranking dataset is the most deployment-ready, while the Budget Prediction dataset is challenging. These insights emphasize the need for multidimensional evaluation frameworks for responsible AI deployment in education.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].