Discussion
The comparison between machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) in predicting student
grades reveals distinct advantages and limitations for each approach. Both approaches show
potential to improve student outcomes by enabling timely interventions, but their effectiveness
depends on the specific context in which they are used.
ML models like Decision Trees, Random Forests, and Logistic Regression perform well with
relatively small, structured datasets—such as test scores, attendance, and homework
completion. Their primary strength lies in interpretability. Educators can understand which
factors most influence predictions, fostering trust and supporting transparent decision-making.
For example, if the model identifies attendance as a major predictor of final grades, educators
can act directly on this insight.
In contrast, Deep learning models, particularly neural networks and recurrent architectures like
LSTM, demonstrated improved accuracy when applied to larger datasets with temporal or
complex features. DL models can automatically learn high-level feature representations from
raw data, which is particularly advantageous when dealing with time-series data (e.g., weekly
performance logs) or behavioral data from learning management systems (LMS). These models
excel at capturing non-linear relationships and vague patterns that may not be easily detected
by traditional ML algorithms. However, DL's complexity introduces challenges in transparency
and explainability. Educators may find it difficult to understand or trust the outcomes of models
they cannot interpret, which could hinder adoption.
Another important factor is the resource requirement. Deep learning models typically need
more computational power and time to train compared to ML models. For institutions with
limited technological infrastructure, ML may offer a more practical and cost-effective solution.
Additionally, ML algorithms tend to perform adequately with smaller datasets, while DL models
often require large volumes of data to generalize well.
It is also essential to consider the ethical implications of applying predictive models in
education. Predictive systems carry the risk of reinforcing existing biases in historical data. For
instance, if students from disadvantaged backgrounds haven't done as well in the past because
of unfair systems, the models might keep repeating those same patterns. Furthermore, Privacy
is another major concern. Students’ academic records, behavior data, and personal information
must be handled securely and ethically, with transparent policies on data usage and permission.
In short, both ML and DL approaches offer valuable insights and tools for predicting student
performance, but their suitability depends on various factors including data availability,
computational resources, and the need for interpretability. A hybrid approach that combines
ML's clarity with DL's power can offer the most balanced and effective solution for educational
prediction tasks.
Conclusion
This article examined the fundamental differences between machine learning and deep
learning, focusing on their practical use in predicting student academic performance. Both
approaches provide effective tools for educational analytics, though they serve different
purposes and require different conditions for optimal performance.
Machine learning models are especially useful when dealing with smaller, structured datasets.
They offer a straightforward and reliable means of identifying at-risk students using a limited
amount of structured data. These models are efficient, easy to deploy, and offer clear insights
that educators can easily understand and apply in their teaching strategies.
On the other hand, deep learning models bring considerable advantages in terms of predictive
power, especially when dealing with large, complex, or unstructured datasets. DL models can
detect intricate patterns and trends in student behavior and performance that traditional
models might overlook. However, these advantages come with lack of interpretability and
increased requirements for data, computational resources and technical expertise.
To sum up, selecting between ML and DL should be based on several factors: the complexity
and volume of available data, the computational infrastructure, and the need for transparent
results. In many practical applications, especially in resource-limited settings, ML may be the
preferred choice. However, DL remains a valuable tool for deeper insights, particularly when
accuracy and scalability are critical.
In the near future, research in this domain can take several promising directions. First,
incorporating diverse data sources—like student interactions on LMS platforms, written
feedback, and even audio or video from classrooms—could enhance the accuracy and depth of
deep learning models. This richer input would allow models to better understand student
behavior and learning patterns. Second, making deep learning models more explainable is
important, especially in education where decisions affect real people. Techniques such as SHAP
and LIME can help explain model predictions, making them more understandable and
trustworthy for educators and other non-technical users. Last but not least, bias mitigation and
ethical AI must be significantly considered. As AI tools become more integrated into education,
ensuring fairness and ethical use is crucial. Future research should focus on identifying and
reducing bias in models, promoting suitable outcomes for all student groups, and maintaining
strong data privacy protections.
Overall, by advancing in these paths, educational institutions can harness the power of AI not
only to predict outcomes but also to create more equitable, responsive, and student-centered
learning environments.
