AI-Based Early Prediction and Intervention for Student Academic Performance in Higher Education

International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Applications (IJAIA), Vol.16, No.1, January 2025
DOI:10.5121/ijaia.2025.16101 1
AI-BASED EARLY PREDICTION AND
INTERVENTION FOR STUDENT ACADEMIC
PERFORMANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Maram Khamis Al-Muharrami, Fatema Said Al-Sharqi, Al-Zahraa Khalid Al-
Rumhi and Shamsa Said Al-Mamari, Ijaz Khan
Department of Information Technology, Buraimi University College, Buraimi City,
Oman
ABSTRACT
Accurately identifying at-risk students in higher education is crucial for timely interventions. This study
presents an AI-based solution for predicting student performance using machine learning classifiers. A
dataset of 208 student records from the past two years was preprocessed, and key predictors such as
midterm grades, previous semester GPA, and cumulative GPA were selected using information gain
evaluation. Multiple classifiers, including Support Vector Machine (SVM), Decision Tree, Naive Bayes,
Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), and k-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN), were evaluated through 10-fold cross-
validation. SVM demonstrated the highest performance with an accuracy of 85.1% and an F2 score of
94.0%, effectively identifying students scoring below 65% (GPA < 2.0). The model was implemented in a
desktop application for educators, providing both class-level and individual-level predictions. This user-
friendly tool enables instructors to monitor performance, predict outcomes, and implement timely
interventions to support struggling students. The study highlights the effectiveness of machine learning in
enhancing academic performance monitoring and offers a scalable approach for AI-driven educational
tools.
KEYWORDS
Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Student Performance Prediction, Higher Education, AI-based
Application
1. INTRODUCTION
The rapid advancement of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has significantly
impacted various sectors, including education, by reshaping educational systems, prompting the
adoption of digital strategies, and highlighting critical gaps and inequalities in digital capacity
[1]. In higher educational institutions (HEIs), maintaining high educational standards and
ensuring student success have become critical priorities. Governmental and accreditation
agencies, such as the Oman Academic Accreditation Authority and Quality Assurance
(OAAAQA) is involved in maintaining and ensuring quality in higher education institutions
(HEIs) in Oman [2]. Consequently, monitoring student performance has emerged as an essential
factor in meeting these standards and providing accountability [3].
Instructors often face an overwhelming number of responsibilities, making it challenging to
continuously monitor each student's academic progress and implement timely interventions [4].
Traditional methods of monitoring, which rely on periodic assessments, may not provide the
early insights needed to support students at risk of underperforming [5]. The increased workload
on instructors underscores the need for technological solutions that integrate psychological

2
theory, research, and statistical methods to assist in tracking and improving student performance
within the dynamic processes of classroom environments [6].
Modern educational institutions are increasingly implementing sophisticated systems that
continuously collect and analyze data on students' academic activities to improve learning,
develop self-regulated learning skills, and support student success [7]. However, this data is often
underutilized. Leveraging this data through Machine Learning (ML), a branch of Artificial
Intelligence (AI), offers innovative tools for monitoring and predicting student performance [8].
Machine learning algorithms can analyze students' behavioral and academic data to predict their
future performance, allowing for early intervention and identifying those who may require
additional support [9].
Previous studies have demonstrated the potential of machine learning in predicting student
performance. For example, Hashim et al. [10] employed various supervised machine learning
algorithms and found that logistic regression was the most accurate in predicting student
outcomes. Similarly, Lau et al. [11] utilized an artificial neural network to model and predict
student academic performance, achieving effective results. Mondal et al. [12] applied a Recurrent
Neural Network to predict student performance, demonstrating higher accuracy compared to
traditional neural networks. Pallathadka et al. [13] explored various classifiers, identifying
Support Vector Machine (SVM) as the most accurate for classifying and predicting student
performance. Sukhbaatar et al. [14] proposed an early prediction scheme using a neural network
to identify at-risk students in a blended learning course, which successfully identified failing
students early in the semester. Additionally, Alcaraz et al. [15] designed a tailored early warning
system for a course, finding that an ensemble classifier with a novel weighted voting strategy was
the most effective. These studies highlight the effectiveness of machine learning classifiers in
academic contexts, establishing a basis for future exploration.
Despite these progressions, a notable gap persists in creating intuitive and comprehensive
applications that incorporate diverse machine learning models for real-time monitoring and
intervention within educational environments. Existing studies have demonstrated the efficacy of
specific algorithms in predicting academic outcomes, yet practical tools that educators can readily
use to continuously track student progress and implement timely interventions are lacking.
This research addresses a significant gap by creating an AI-based application that predicts student
performance using diverse machine learning classifiers and provides actionable insights for
educators. To develop this AI-based application, we collect and preprocess academic records
from host institute over the past two years, creating a training dataset suitable for machine
learning. The dataset includes various features such as gender, major, grades in continuous
assessments (assignment, midterm exam), and CGPA. Through feature engineering, we identify
the most significant predictors of student performance. Our approach applies multiple machine
learning classifiers to identify the model with the highest predictive accuracy. The selected model
is transformed into a desktop application using JavaScript. This application will analyze students'
academic progress after the midterm exam and provide predictions of whether students will
achieve satisfactory or unsatisfactory outcomes. The midterm accounts for 30% of the total grade,
leaving 70% of the grade for students to improve upon. The evaluation in this study focuses on a
single course, allowing for precise and tailored predictions of student performance within this
specific context. However, the same methodology can be applied to additional courses by
incorporating their respective datasets. The developed software is designed to be flexible and
scalable, enabling educators to add and analyze multiple courses seamlessly, extending its
applicability across various academic contexts.

3
The proposed solution will empower instructors to proactively support students, particularly
those identified as likely to end the course with unsatisfactory grades. By providing timely
consultations and additional resources, instructors can help guide these students towards
academic success, thereby enhancing the overall educational standards and accountability of the
institution. This research addresses the critical need for effective student performance monitoring
in HEIs. By utilizing machine learning to predict academic outcomes, we can provide instructors
with valuable tools to improve student support and intervention strategies, ultimately contributing
to better educational outcomes and institutional accountability.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews relevant literature, Section 3 summarizes
related work, Section 4 describes the dataset and tools, Section 5 details the methodology,
Section 6 concludes with future directions.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Predicting student academic performance has garnered significant interest in the field of
education [16]. Traditional approaches relied heavily on periodic assessments such as exams,
quizzes, and assignments to gauge student understanding and progress. These methods provided
limited insights, often failing to identify at-risk students early enough for timely interventions.
With the advent of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), educational institutions
have adopted more sophisticated methods, including the integration of digital learning platforms
that enhance continuous assessment and data collection [17]. This progression has achieved a
new level with the incorporation of machine learning (ML) techniques. Machine learning models
can process large volumes of academic, demographic, and behavioral data, enabling more precise
and timely predictions of student performance [18]. This shift from static, periodic assessments to
dynamic, data-driven approaches represents a significant advancement in educational monitoring,
allowing for more personalized and proactive student support.
In recent years, educational technology has rapidly integrated machine learning applications to
enhance learning outcomes [19]. Modern trends encompass the use of predictive analytics to
anticipate student performance, adaptive learning systems that tailor educational content to
individual requirements, and intelligent tutoring systems providing real-time feedback and
assistance [20]. Learning management systems (LMS) are increasingly leveraging machine
learning algorithms to evaluate student interactions and engagement, offering insights into
learning behaviors and highlighting areas for improvement [21]. These technologies enhance
personalized education and enable educators to identify and support at-risk students more
efficiently. AI-powered chatbots for administrative tasks and the adoption of virtual reality (VR)
and augmented reality (AR) for immersive learning are gaining popularity, highlighting the
transformative role of machine learning in education [22].
Despite the promising potential of machine learning in educational contexts, several challenges
and limitations must be addressed to ensure its effective implementation. A key challenge lies in
maintaining data quality and completeness, as machine learning models require reliable datasets
to produce accurate predictions [23]. In many educational institutions, data is often fragmented
or inconsistent, which can hamper the performance of these models. Additionally, data privacy
concerns are paramount; educational institutions must ensure that the use of student data adheres
to strict privacy laws and regulations [24]. The complexity of machine learning models presents a
challenge, as educators may find it difficult to interpret and utilize the insights they produce [25].
Additionally, there is a risk of algorithmic bias, where models could unintentionally reinforce
existing inequalities if not properly managed [26]. Overcoming these challenges necessitates
strong data governance policies, continuous educator training, and the creation of transparent,
interpretable machine learning models.

4
Machine learning algorithms are designed to build models from training data to categorize or
predict outcomes without being specifically programmed [27]. Machine learning algorithms are
utilized across diverse domains, including pattern recognition, object detection, and text analysis,
and are developed using the latest data trends [28]. Each classifier operates based on distinct
principles and techniques. Logistic regression, for instance, uses an explicit model with a well-
understood statistical foundation, making it simple and interpretable for modeling probabilities,
even in complex real-world problems [29]. A decision tree divides data into branches according
to feature values, enabling clear visualization and simplifying the interpretation of the
classification process [30]. Support Vector Machines (SVM) are supervised learning models that
use training data to create margins that separate classes, making them effective for classification
and regression analysis. It classifies new data points by measuring their distance from the class
margins, making it especially effective for complex, small-to-medium-sized datasets [31]. Naive
Bayes utilizes Bayes' theorem while assuming conditional independence among features, making
it both computationally efficient and highly effective for text classification and high-dimensional
data domains [32]. Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) are composed of layers of interconnected
neurons that process input data through weighted links, enabling them to model complex and
non-linear relationships effectively [33]. Ensemble methods, such as Random Forests, enhance
prediction accuracy by combining multiple decision trees and aggregating their outputs through
averaging or majority voting [34]. Each type of classifier has distinct strengths and weaknesses,
with the selection depending on the characteristics of the data and the specific demands of the
prediction task.
The significance and suitability of various machine learning classifiers for predicting student
performance lie in their ability to handle diverse data types and uncover intricate patterns that
traditional methods might miss. Logistic regression is well-suited for binary classification tasks,
such as predicting pass or fail outcomes, because of its simplicity and interpretability.[29].
Decision Trees provide clear visual representations of decision-making processes, making them
useful for educators to understand the factors influencing student performance. Support Vector
Machines (SVM) are highly effective for handling high-dimensional data and are particularly
suitable for datasets with complex but linearly separable patterns, making them ideal for
analysing nuanced academic performance data. Naive Bayes classifiers, assuming feature
independence, perform effectively in high-dimensional spaces and are especially efficient for
real-time prediction tasks, such as tracking on-going student performance. Artificial Neural
Networks (ANN) and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) are powerful in capturing non-linear
relationships and temporal dependencies in student data, respectively, making them ideal for
modelling complex student behaviours over time. Ensemble methods, such as Random Forests,
improve predictive accuracy and robustness by combining multiple decision trees, minimizing
overfitting, and enhancing generalization. The varied strengths of these classifiers enable
adaptable and customized approaches to predicting student performance, helping educators
deliver timely and effective support to at-risk students and enhance overall educational outcomes.
3. RELATED WORK
This section examines related work on the application of machine learning algorithms for
predicting academic performance. Past research has showcased a range of approaches and
methodologies, emphasizing the potential of machine learning to deliver actionable insights in
educational contexts. The goal of this review is to offer a comprehensive summary of existing
literature, highlighting major trends, methods, and gaps that this study aims to address.
Musso et al. [35] design a machine learning model to forecast academic success and dropout rates
by analyzing learning strategies, social support, motivation, socio-demographics, health
conditions, and academic performance. The study discovered that learning strategies were the

5
strongest predictor of GPA, whereas background information was the key factor in identifying
potential dropouts. The study [18] explores educational data mining to predict undergraduate
students' final exam grades using their midterm grades. The study compares machine learning
algorithms, including Random Forests, SVM, Logistic Regression, Naïve Bayes, and k-NN, using
course datasets. Achieving 70-75% accuracy, it highlights the potential of data-driven methods
for early identification of at-risk students and informed decision-making in higher education.
Hashim et al. [10] investigates the application of supervised machine learning algorithms to
predict student performance in higher education. By analyzing demographic, academic, and
behavioral data, they compared multiple algorithms. Logistic Regression proved most effective,
achieving approximately 69% accuracy for predicting passes and 89% for failures. This study
demonstrates the potential of machine learning in educational data mining to improve
institutional decision-making and foster student success. Hussain et al. [36] applies machine
learning techniques to predict academic performance at secondary and intermediate levels. Using
regression models and decision tree classifiers optimized with genetic algorithms, they forecast
grades based on historical data. The study achieved high accuracy and low error rates, validating
the potential of these methods for enhancing educational planning and development.
Alhazmi et al. [37] aim to predict students' academic performance in higher education by
analyzing various factors such as admission scores, first-level course scores, academic
achievement tests, and general aptitude tests. They use both clustering and classification
techniques, employing t-SNE for dimensionality reduction and various machine learning
algorithms. Their findings suggest that incorporating comprehensive features improves prediction
accuracy, helping educational institutions to identify and support at-risk students early on, and
thereby enhancing overall educational outcomes. The study [38] examines the relationship
between college students' internet usage and academic performance by analysing features such as
online duration, traffic volume, and connection frequency. Supervised machine learning
algorithms were employed for prediction, revealing that frequent connections positively correlate
with success, while high traffic volume negatively impacts performance. Expanding the feature
set enhanced prediction accuracy, showcasing the effectiveness of internet usage data in
predicting academic outcomes.
Ojajuni et al. [39] aim to predict student academic performance using machine learning by
analyzing historical data to identify key factors affecting academic success. The study applies a
set of supervised machine learning classifiers to classify student performance.. The study
concludes that applying machine learning in education can help educators identify at-risk
students early and improve educational outcomes through informed decision-making. Adnan et
al. [40] aim to predict at-risk students in online learning environments at various stages of course
completion to facilitate timely interventions by instructors. The study utilizes machine learning
models to analyze student engagement, demographics, and assessment data. Their findings
indicate that early prediction and intervention can significantly improve student retention and
performance. Khan et al. [41] aim to monitor student performance and devise preventive
measures using artificial intelligence in educational institutions. The study employs machine
learning algorithms to predict student performance. Their research finds that decision tree models
are the most effective, and highlights CGPA, midterm exam marks, and attendance as key
predictors of student outcomes. The model allows instructors to identify struggling students early
and implement tailored interventions, leading to improved academic results.
Pallathadka et al. [13] aim to classify and predict student performance using various machine
learning algorithms to enhance academic outcomes. The study employs several algorithms on the
student performance dataset, focusing on accuracy and error rate. Their findings indicate that
SVM outperforms other algorithms in accuracy, demonstrating its effectiveness for educational

6
data mining. This analysis helps institutions identify and support students needing additional
focus, ultimately aiming to lower failure rates and improve educational quality. Similarly, several
authors [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] have developed student performance prediction models
using machine learning algorithms. Table 1 summarizes research studies that highlight the role of
machine learning algorithms in predicting students' academic performance.
Table 1 A summary of various related work
Ref. Algorithm(s) used Performance
Metrics
Dataset
Size
Place of
Study
Key Findings
[10] Decision Tree, Naive
Bayes, Logistic
Regression, Support Vector
Machine, K-Nearest
Neighbour, Sequential
Minimal Optimisation,
Neural Network
Accuracy (Logistic
Regression: 68.7%
for exact final
grades, 88.8% for
pass/fail prediction)
499
records
Iraq Logistic Regression most
accurate for predicting
exact grades and pass/fail
status.
[18] Random Forests, Nearest
Neighbour, Support Vector
Machines, Logistic
Regression, Naïve Bayes,
K-Nearest Neighbour
Classification
accuracy: 70-75%
1854
records
Turkey Proposed model achieved
70-75% classification
accuracy for predicting
final exam grades.
[36] Decision Tree, K-Nearest
Neighbour, Genetic
Algorithm
DT accuracy:
94.39%, K-NN
accuracy: 85.74%,
GA-DT accuracy:
96.64%, GA-KNN
accuracy: 89.92%
90,000
records
Pakistan GA-DT classifier
achieved highest
accuracy (96.64%) for
grade prediction.
[37] XGBoost, Logistic
Regression, Support Vector
Machine, K-Nearest
Neighbour, Random Forest
Highest accuracy:
XGBoost 85%
275,000
records
Saudi
Arabia
XGBoost classifier
achieved highest
accuracy (85%) for early
student performance
prediction.
[39] Random Forest, Support
Vector Machines, Gradient
Boosting, Decision Tree,
Logistic Regression,
Extreme Gradient Boosting
(XGBoost), Deep Learning
Highest accuracy:
XGBoost 97.12%
1044
records
USA XGBoost achieved
highest accuracy
(97.12%) for predicting
student academic
performance.
[40] Random Forest, Deep Feed
Forward Neural Network
(DFFNN)
Accuracy: Random
Forest 91%,
DFFNN 89%
32,593
records
Kohat
University
of Science
and
Technology,
Pakistan
Random Forest
outperformed other
models with an accuracy
of 91% at 100% course
length. Earliest
identification of at-risk
students at 20% course
length.
[41] Decision Tree, k-NN,
Naive Bayes, Artificial
Neural Network
Decision Tree
accuracy: 86%, F-
Measure: 0.91,
MCC: 0.63
151
records
Buraimi
University
College,
Oman
Decision Tree model
achieved highest
performance metrics and
was transformed into an
easily interpretable
format for instructors to
take preventive measures.
[13] Naive Bayes, ID3, C4.5,
SVM
SVM accuracy:
93%, Naive Bayes
accuracy: 89%, ID3
accuracy: 85%,
C4.5 accuracy: 87%
649
records
University
of Minho,
Portugal
SVM achieved highest
accuracy for classifying
student performance data.

7
4. MATERIALS USED
4.1. Data Description
The dataset used in this study comprises 208 instances of student performance in a course at host
institute. Each instance is characterized by features relevant to predicting final outcomes, with
160 labelled as "High" (indicating likely good performance) and 48 as "Low" (indicating likely
poor performance), resulting in an imbalance ratio of approximately 3.33:1. The goal is to
accurately identify "Low" performing students after the midterm exam to enable timely
interventions. In this study, a "struggling student" is represented by the "Low" label in the
dataset. This classification refers to students who score below 65% in their overall marks, which
corresponds to a cumulative GPA of less than 2.0 based on the grading policy of the host
institution. These students are identified as being at risk of achieving unsatisfactory academic
outcomes and in need of timely intervention. All student data is anonymized, and the system
complies with data protection regulations, ensuring confidentiality and secure access.
4.2. WEKA
WEKA (Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis) is a popular open-source software suite
that provides a comprehensive collection of machine learning algorithms and tools for data
mining tasks [48]. WEKA, developed by the University of Waikato, is a powerful tool widely
adopted in academia and industry due to its intuitive interface and comprehensive features. It
offers robust support for data preprocessing, classification, regression, clustering, and
visualization, making it highly versatile for analytical tasks. In this study, WEKA was chosen for
its reliability and ease of use, enabling efficient experimentation. Classifiers were implemented
using WEKA's built-in algorithms with default settings, ensuring a consistent evaluation
framework for the imbalanced dataset. Furthermore, WEKA’s advanced functionalities, such as
cross-validation and feature selection, were utilized to enhance the accuracy and credibility of the
results.
4.3. Confusion Matrix
A confusion matrix is an essential tool for assessing the performance of a classification
algorithm. It provides a detailed summary of prediction outcomes, offering valuable insights into
the classifier's effectiveness in solving a given classification problem. The matrix is structured in
a table format, as shown in table 2, which contrasts the actual class labels against the predicted
class labels, typically organizing the data into four categories: True Positives (TP), False
Negatives (FN), False Positives (FP), and True Negatives (TN). True positives represent the
instances where the model correctly predicted the positive class, whereas false negatives are the
positive instances that were incorrectly classified as negative. Similarly, false positives are the
negative instances that were incorrectly classified as positive and true negatives are the instances
where the model correctly predicted the negative class. This matrix is crucial as it allows for the
calculation of various performance metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, specificity, and the
F-Measure, which offer a more nuanced understanding of the classifier's performance beyond just
accuracy [49].

8
Table 2 A standard binary classification confusion matrix
Confusion Matrix
Predicted Results
Positive Negative
Actual Values
Positive True Positive (TP) False Negative (FN)
Negative False Positive (FP) True Negative (TN)
4.4 Evaluation Metrics
The primary objective of predicting student outcomes as "Low" or "High" is to identify students
in the "Low" category after their midterm exams. This early identification is critical as it enables
instructors to take proactive measures and provide targeted support to help these students
improve their performance by the end of the course. Given the imbalance in the dataset, where
"High" outcomes are more frequent than "Low" outcomes, the choice of evaluation metrics
becomes essential. While accuracy is widely used, it may not provide an accurate representation
in such cases. To ensure a more balanced assessment, specificity and the F-measure are utilized,
offering deeper insights into the classifier's performance and its ability to handle imbalanced data
effectively. Table 3 presents the formulas for calculating the evaluation metrics using the
confusion matrix.
Table 3 A list of evaluation metrics used in this research
Metric Formula
Accuracy (TP+TN)/(TP+FN+FP+TN)
Specificity TN/(TN+FP)
F-beta Measure ((1 + beta^2) * Precision * Recall) / (beta^2 *
Precision + Recall)
Accuracy measures the proportion of correctly classified instances out of the total instances. It
indicates how often the classifier is correct overall: In this context, accuracy helps provide a
general sense of the classifier's performance. However, in imbalanced datasets, a high accuracy
can be achieved by correctly predicting the majority class ("High") most of the time, while failing
to identify the minority class ("Low"). Despite its limitations, accuracy is included as it is one of
the most widely used metrics and offers a baseline for comparison. Specificity measures the
proportion of actual negatives correctly identified. In this context, specificity is crucial as it
reflects how well the classifier identifies students who are likely to perform "Low." High
specificity means that the classifier is effective at minimizing false positives, ensuring that
students predicted to perform poorly genuinely need support. This focus on accurately identifying
the "Low" performers is essential for targeted interventions and support.
In this study, the F2 Measure takes precedence. The F-Measure combines precision and recall
into a single score, with the F1 score being their harmonic mean. Variants like F0.5 and F2 adjust
the balance between precision and recall based on specific needs. F0.5 places greater emphasis on
precision, making it ideal when minimizing false positives is critical, ensuring highly accurate
positive predictions. On the other hand, the F2 Measure prioritizes recall, making it better suited
when reducing false negatives is more important. In this context, the F2 Measure is crucial as it
ensures that students likely to perform "Low" are correctly identified, minimizing the risk of
overlooking those in need of assistance.

9
5. METHODOLOGY
The methodology for this study involved several phases to ensure robust model performance.
Initially, data preprocessing was conducted, including feature removal, handling missing values,
and noise reduction to prepare a clean and comprehensive dataset. Feature selection utilized
Information Gain to identify and retain the most relevant attributes, enhancing model accuracy
and efficiency. Subsequently, various classifiers—Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machine (SVM),
Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), and Decision Tree—were
evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation [50] on the refined dataset to determine the most
effective model. Model evaluation involved validating predictions on a prediction dataset to
assess accuracy and identify misclassification patterns. Finally, the chosen model was integrated
into a desktop application using JavaScript, allowing for efficient and user-friendly prediction of
student outcomes based on input data.
5.1. Data Preprocessing
In this phase, several operations were conducted to ensure the dataset was suitable for analysis
and model training. Initially, irrelevant features were removed to simplify the model and enhance
its performance. Features that did not contribute significantly to the predictive model were
identified and eliminated. Missing values were addressed by removing records with missing data,
thereby ensuring the dataset's completeness. Noise reduction techniques were applied to identify
and remove outliers or noisy data that could potentially distort the model's performance. The
table 4 presents the features of the dataset.
Table 4 The training dataset with all features
Feature Description Data Type
Gender Gender of the student nominal
Degree Degree program nominal
Major Major subject nominal
Year Year of study nominal
MidExam Marks obtained in the Midterm Exam numeric
Registered_Course Number of registered courses numeric
Prev_Sem_GPA GPA obtained in the previous semester numeric
CGPA Cumulative GPA numeric
Hostel Whether the student resides in a hostel nominal
Grade Binary classification of the grade High, Low
The subsequent step in this phase involved feature selection, with the primary objective of
identifying and retaining the most impactful features in the dataset that play a significant role in
enhancing the predictive model's performance [51]. Feature selection is essential for reducing
model complexity, which in turn helps to minimize the risk of overfitting [52]. Additionally,
feature selection improves computational efficiency by lowering the dataset's dimensionality,
resulting in quicker training and prediction processes. The technique used for feature selection in
this study was InfoGain (Information Gain) Attribute Evaluation.
Information Gain is a feature selection metric that identifies and retains significant features,
reducing data dimensionality and improving classification performance [53]. It quantifies the
contribution of each feature in predicting the target variable. In WEKA, the Information Gain
attribute evaluator ranks features by assessing the information they contribute to the class label,
enhancing classification accuracy by eliminating redundant and irrelevant features [54]. Features
that contribute more to reducing uncertainty in the target variable are ranked higher. The table 5

10
provides the features ranked by the Information Gain attribute evaluator. Information Gain was
selected as our feature selection method because it effectively identifies features that significantly
contribute to reducing uncertainty about the target variable, thus improving the model’s
predictive accuracy. It is particularly well-suited for handling categorical data, which is prevalent
in our dataset. Information Gain streamlines the feature selection process by ranking features
according to their contribution to class separation, reducing the risk of overfitting and promoting
a more interpretable model. Its effectiveness across various classification problems further
validates its role in improving model performance.
Table 5 Ranked Attributes Based on Information Gain
Rank Attribute InfoGain
1 Prev_Sem_GPA 0.29612
2 MidExam 0.212228
3 CGPA 0.18578
4 Year 0.046815
5 Registered_Course 0.030815
6 Major 0.023433
7 Gender 0.005324
8 Degree 0.00519
9 Hostel 0.000194
The final step focused on selecting key features based on their information gain values. This
feature selection process is vital to ensure that only the most significant features are incorporated
into the final model. The main reasons for selecting a few features are to maintain model
simplicity, improve performance, and enhance computational efficiency. Reducing data
dimensions and selecting appropriate feature sets simplifies the model, enhances interpretability
and maintainability, and leads to better generalization on unseen data by improving classification
accuracy and removing redundant and irrelevant features [55]. Eliminating irrelevant or
redundant features reduces data noise, resulting in improved model performance and increased
accuracy [56]. Additionally, fewer features mean less computational overhead, translating to
faster training and prediction times. We specifically chose features with computable values, as
these are easier for students to control and influence [57]. For instance, features like MidExam
and CGPA scores are directly influenced by the students' efforts and performance, unlike
incomputable features such as Gender. The table 6 provides the final set of features along with
their descriptions.
Table 6 Final Set of features and their descriptions
Feature Description
MidExam Marks obtained in the Midterm Exam
Prev_Sem_GPA GPA obtained in the previous semester
CGPA Cumulative GPA
Grade High, Low
This comprehensive data processing and feature selection phase highlights the rigorous steps
taken to ensure the dataset's suitability for analysis and the strategic selection of features to
enhance model performance.

11
5.2. Model Selection
This experimental evaluation aimed to assess the performance of various machine learning
classifiers on the training dataset to identify the most suitable model for the application. The
output of the previous phase was a training dataset that had undergone preprocessing and feature
selection to ensure it was suitable for analysis and model training. In this phase, we aimed to
apply various classifiers to this refined dataset to identify which model delivered the best
performance metrics.
We convert the training dataset into ARFF file format, as it is a crucial step for utilizing WEKA
effectively, which supports various file formats, including CSV and ARFF, essential for using the
software suite efficiently [58]. To ensure a thorough evaluation, we used 10-fold cross-validation,
a method that splits the dataset into ten segments, trains the model on nine segments, and tests it
on the remaining one, repeating this process ten times [59]. This approach provided a more
reliable assessment of the model's performance by minimizing the variance linked to a single
train-test split.
We utilized five classifiers on the dataset—Decision Tree, Support Vector Machine (SVM), k-
Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), and Naive Bayes—each selected
for its specific strengths in managing various data types and patterns. For each classifier, we
obtained a confusion matrix, a table that summarized the performance of the model. This
confusion matrix was then used to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the classifiers in
classifying the data. We focus on metrics such as accuracy, Specificity, and F-Measure to
evaluate and compare the classifiers, as these metrics are more meaningful in the context of
correctly identifying students likely to perform "Low." Table 7 provides the confusion matrixes
for the classifiers:
Table 7 The confusion matrixes of the classifiers
Classifier TP FN FP TN
Naive Bayes 135 25 13 35
Support Vector Machines (SVM) 154 6 25 23
Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) 148 12 22 26
K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) 139 21 24 24
Decision Tree 148 12 18 30
Figure 1 demonstrates the accuracy achieved by the classifiers. The comparative analysis of
classifier accuracy reveals distinct differences in performance across the five classifiers
evaluated. Decision Tree emerged as the most accurate classifier, achieving an accuracy of
85.6%. This indicates a strong ability to correctly classify both "High" and "Low" performing
students. SVM followed closely with an accuracy of 81.1%, demonstrating robust performance as
well. Naive Bayes and ANN exhibited similar accuracies, with Naive Bayes at 81.7% and ANN
at 83.7%, showing they are effective but slightly less reliable compared to Decision Tree and
SVM. KNN had the lowest accuracy at 78.4%, suggesting it struggles more with accurately
predicting student performance. These results highlight that while Decision Tree and SVM are
highly effective in handling this classification task, KNN's lower accuracy indicates it may not be
the best choice for predicting student outcomes in this context. Despite accuracy being a
commonly used metric, it is important to consider other evaluation metrics, especially in the
presence of class imbalance, to ensure a comprehensive assessment of classifier performance.

12
Figure 1 A comparison of the classifier's accuracy
Figure 2 shows the specificity comparison of the five classifiers, highlighting their effectiveness
in correctly identifying "Low" performing students. Naive Bayes demonstrated the highest
specificity at 72.9%, showcasing its effectiveness in accurately identifying true negatives while
minimizing false positives. This makes it particularly effective for targeted interventions to
support at-risk students. Decision Tree also performed well with a specificity of 62.5%,
demonstrating its reliability in distinguishing between the classes. The ANN classifier achieved a
specificity of 54.2%, showing moderate performance but still being a viable option for
recognizing "Low" performers. SVM and KNN, however, exhibited lower specificities of 47.9%
and 50.0%, respectively, suggesting that these models struggle more with accurately identifying
students likely to perform poorly. These findings highlight the significance of choosing a
classifier with high specificity in scenarios where accurately identifying "Low" performing
students is essential for timely and effective educational interventions.
Figure 2 Comparison of classifiers' specificity
Figure 3 compares the F2 measure of the five classifiers, highlighting their effectiveness in
prioritizing recall over precision, which is crucial for ensuring that most "Low" performing
students are identified. The SVM has highest F2 measure of 94% demonstrating their strong
ability to capture the majority of at-risk students while maintaining a reasonable level of
precision, making them highly effective for early identification and intervention purposes. It is
followed by Decision Tree and ANN with 91.8% and 94% respectively. Naive Bayes and KNN

13
both achieved an F2 measure of 82.7% and 86.6% respectively, which, while slightly lower than
the others, still shows a good balance between identifying true positives and minimizing false
negatives. These results underscore the importance of the F2 measure in educational contexts
where the primary goal is to ensure that as many "Low" performing students as possible are
identified for timely support. The higher F2 scores of SVM and Decision Tree indicate that these
classifiers are particularly well-suited for identifying at-risk students, effectively minimizing the
risk of overlooking those who require intervention. The slightly lower F2 measures for Naive
Bayes and KNN indicate that while they are still effective, they may not be as comprehensive in
capturing all students who are at risk. Overall, the F2 measure provides a valuable perspective on
the classifiers' performance in ensuring broad coverage of at-risk students, which is essential for
effective educational interventions.
Figure 3 Comparative analysis of classifiers' F2 measures
From the comparative analysis of accuracy, specificity, and the F2 measure, the Support Vector
Machine (SVM) stands out as the most effective classifier for identifying students at risk of
failing the course. With an accuracy of around 85%, SVM demonstrates a robust ability to
accurately classify both "High" and "Low" performing students. It also attained the F2 measure at
94.0%, showcasing demonstrating its strong ability to capture the majority of at-risk students
while maintaining a reasonable level of precision. These metrics collectively underscore SVM
robustness in identifying "Low" performing students, making it particularly effective for targeted
interventions. Overall, the SVM classifier stands out as the most reliable and comprehensive
model for predicting student outcomes and providing the necessary support to those at risk,
ensuring timely and effective educational interventions.
5.3. Model Evaluation
We conducted a rigorous evaluation of the selected machine learning model using the WEKA
platform to validate its predictive performance. The evaluation process involved preparing a
validation dataset that was identical to the training dataset, except for the final outcome/class
feature, which was intentionally left unspecified (denoted as "?"). The model was required to
predict these unspecified outcomes, and the predictions were subsequently compared against the
actual outcomes to assess the model's accuracy and reliability in a real-world context. The
confusion matrix generated from this evaluation, presented in table 8, provides a detailed
breakdown of true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives.

14
Table 8 Confusion matrix of model evaluation phase
Predicted High Predicted Low
Actual High 26 2
Actual Low 7 10
The model achieved an accuracy of 80%, a key metric that represents the proportion of correctly
predicted instances out of the total instances. This high level of accuracy demonstrates the
model's robust ability to classify instances correctly in a majority of cases. When considering the
total number of instances (45), this specific misclassification rate translates to approximately
13.3%, indicating that out of all instances, 13. 3% were incorrectly predicted as "High" when
they were actually "Low."
It is crucial to understand the impact of different types of misclassifications. In this context,
predicting "High" as "Low" is not as critical as predicting "Low" as "High." Misclassifying a
"Low" instance as "High" can be more detrimental because it may lead to overestimating an
outcome's importance or potential, which can have significant consequences, depending on the
application. Conversely, predicting "High" as "Low" is less severe in most cases, as it might only
lead to underestimating the potential, which can be managed with additional assessments or
conservative approaches.
The table 9 lists the records of students who were wrongly identified as "High" but were actually
"Low." This analysis aims to identify possible reasons for the misclassification by the model.
Table 9 The actual data of student to investigate False Positive
Record MidExam Prev_Sem_GPA CGPA
1 18 1.98 2.12
2 13 1.9 1.67
3 18 2.03 2.46
4 16 1.9 2.52
5 17 2.4 1.88
6 18 2.30 2.84
7 19 2.36 2.71
The model's misclassification of these "Low" students as "High" appears to be influenced by
relatively high exam and assignment scores in certain instances. The midterm and final exam
scores for these students are not exceptionally low, with some students having moderately high
scores, which may have influenced the model to predict "High." For example, the student in
record 5 has a very high final exam score of 33, which likely skewed the model's prediction
towards "High." Additionally, the GPAs (both previous semester GPA and CGPA) for these
students are relatively low but not consistently so across all records. For instance, records 3 and 4
have CGPAs above 2.4, which might have contributed to the model predicting "High."
Furthermore, assignment scores are generally high for these students, suggesting that the model
might heavily weigh assignment performance when predicting the final classification. These
factors collectively indicate areas where the model could be adjusted or improved to better handle
such cases and reduce the rate of misclassification.
In conclusion, while the model shows strong overall accuracy at approximately 87%, attention is
needed to address the misclassification of "Low" instances as "High." With a misclassification
rate of about 13%, these errors should be closely monitored and reduced to minimize their

15
impact. Enhancing the model's precision in differentiating between "High" and "Low" classes
will be crucial for boosting its reliability and effectiveness.
5.4. Model Integration
The final phase of this research is to transform the chosen model into a desktop application. The
integration of the WEKA model into the software is a critical aspect of its functionality. WEKA
was utilized to develop and train the prediction model. This trained model is then integrated into
a desktop application using JavaScript. The desktop application is designed to call the WEKA
model to perform prediction tasks. By leveraging the capabilities of the WEKA model, the
software can efficiently process the input data and generate accurate predictions about student
outcomes. This seamless integration ensures that the predictive power of the WEKA model is
harnessed effectively within the user-friendly interface of the desktop application.
The software features two primary forms to facilitate predictions. The first form is designed to
predict the final outcome for an entire class. Figure 4 illustrates this operation. Instructors begin
by selecting the relevant course and then upload a prediction dataset in CSV format. This dataset
must have identical features to the training dataset used for building the model. The form offers
the flexibility to view the report on screen, download it as a CSV file, or both.
Figure 4 The interface to predict the final outcome of whole class
The second form, as demonstrated in figure 5, focuses on individual student predictions.
Instructors input specific values for prediction features such as midterm exam grades, assignment
grades, previous semester GPA, and CGPA. the application execute the prediction model for a
file containing single instance and displays the student's final outcome as either "High" or "Low."
The application is designed to be user-friendly, providing instructors with immediate, actionable
insights. The software also includes additional features, such as the ability for instructors to view
the technical details of the prediction models and perform various other supportive operations.

16
Figure 5 The interface to predict the outcome of single student
6. CONCLUSION
This study tackles the pressing need for efficient student performance monitoring in higher
education through the application of machine learning. Our AI-based application, utilizing the
Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier, accurately predicts student outcomes based on
academic data. This enables timely interventions, particularly for students likely to achieve
unsatisfactory grades. The application’s user-friendly interface ensures practical use for
educators, enhancing their ability to support at-risk students and improve overall educational
standards. Future work will focus on refining the model and expanding its application across
diverse educational contexts to further validate its efficacy.
While this study adopts a supervised classification approach to identify struggling students, the
problem could alternatively be framed as an anomaly detection task, treating underperforming
students as rare deviations from the norm. This approach may be particularly useful for
imbalanced datasets or scenarios with limited labeled data. Future work could explore the use of
anomaly detection methods, such as Isolation Forests or One-Class SVM, to complement or
enhance the current methodology.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was funded by the Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and Innovation
(MoHERI) of the Sultanate of Oman under the Block Funding Program (BFP), Agreement No.
MOHERI/BFP/URG/ICT/23/004.

17
AUTHORS
Maram Khamis Khalfan Al-Muharrami is a Bachelor of Software Engineering student with a strong
interest in software development and Artificial Intelligence research. She consistently performs at a high
level and is on the college honors list for her academic excellence.
Fatema Said Ali Al-Sharqi is a Bachelor of Software Engineering student with a strong interest in
software development and research.
Al-Zahraa Khalid Said Al Rumhi is a Bachelor of Computer Science student with a keen interest in
researching Artificial Intelligence and its applications in education.
Shamsa Said Mohammed Al-Mamari is a Bachelor of Computer Science student, recognized on the
College Honor List, and a young researcher in Artificial Intelligence.
Dr. Ijaz Khan, a PhD in Artificial Intelligence, focuses on AI-driven teaching tools, supervised learning
techniques, Wireless Sensor Networks, and Machine Learning. He is currently working on various projects
to enhance AI applications in education. He is also an experienced educator and writer.
REFERENCES
[1] Timotheou, S., et al., Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools'
digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Education and information technologies,
2023. 28(6): p. 6695-6726.
[2] Al-Saadi, Z.T., A review of graduate attributes in the Oman Authority for Academic Accreditation
and Quality Assurance of Education (OAAAQAE’s) quality audit reports. Gulf Education and Social
Policy Review (GESPR), 2023: p. 107–124-107–124.
[3] Liubchenko, V., N. Komleva, and S. Zinovatna. Monitoring Student Performance Based on
Educational Measurements. in International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning.
2023. Springer.
[4] Khan, I., et al., An artificial intelligence approach to monitor student performance and devise
preventive measures. Smart Learning Environments, 2021. 8(1): p. 1-18.
[5] Silberglitt, B., D. Parker, and P. Muyskens, Assessment: Periodic assessment to monitor progress,
in Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of
support. 2015, Springer. p. 271-291.
[6] Brown, G.T. The past, present and future of educational assessment: A transdisciplinary
perspective. in Frontiers in Education. 2022. Frontiers Media SA.
[7] Macfadyen, L.P., et al., Embracing big data in complex educational systems: The learning analytics
imperative and the policy challenge. Research & Practice in Assessment, 2014. 9: p. 17-28.
[8] Deo, R.C., et al., Modern artificial intelligence model development for undergraduate student
performance prediction: An investigation on engineering mathematics courses. IEEE Access, 2020.
8: p. 136697-136724.
[9] Zeineddine, H., U. Braendle, and A. Farah, Enhancing prediction of student success: Automated
machine learning approach. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 2021. 89: p. 106903.
[10] Hashim, A.S., W.A. Awadh, and A.K. Hamoud. Student performance prediction model based on
supervised machine learning algorithms. in IOP conference series: materials science and
engineering. 2020. IOP Publishing.
[11] Lau, E.T., L. Sun, and Q. Yang, Modelling, prediction and classification of student academic
performance using artificial neural networks. SN Applied Sciences, 2019. 1(9): p. 982.
[12] Mondal, A. and J. Mukherjee, An Approach to predict a student’s academic performance using
Recurrent Neural Network (RNN). Int. J. Comput. Appl, 2018. 181(6): p. 1-5.
[13] Pallathadka, H., et al., Classification and prediction of student performance data using various
machine learning algorithms. Materials today: proceedings, 2023. 80: p. 3782-3785.
[14] Sukhbaatar, O., T. Usagawa, and L. Choimaa, An artificial neural network based early prediction of
failure-prone students in blended learning course. International Journal of Emerging Technologies
in Learning (iJET), 2019. 14(19): p. 77-92.

18
[15] Alcaraz, R., et al., Early prediction of students at risk of failing a face-to-face course in power
electronic systems. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2021. 14(5): p. 590-603.
[16] Namoun, A. and A. Alshanqiti, Predicting student performance using data mining and learning
analytics techniques: A systematic literature review. Applied Sciences, 2020. 11(1): p. 237.
[17] Sayaf, A.M., et al., Information and communications technology used in higher education: An
empirical study on digital learning as sustainability. Sustainability, 2021. 13(13): p. 7074.
[18] Yağcı, M., Educational data mining: prediction of students' academic performance using machine
learning algorithms. Smart Learning Environments, 2022. 9(1): p. 11.
[19] Villegas-Ch, W., M. Román-Cañizares, and X. Palacios-Pacheco, Improvement of an online
education model with the integration of machine learning and data analysis in an LMS. Applied
Sciences, 2020. 10(15): p. 5371.
[20] Gligorea, I., et al., Adaptive learning using artificial intelligence in e-learning: a literature review.
Education Sciences, 2023. 13(12): p. 1216.
[21] Ismail, S.N., et al., Exploring students engagement towards the learning management system (LMS)
using learning analytics. Computer systems science & engineering, 2021. 37(1).
[22] Wongwatkit, C., et al., The Future of Connectivist Learning with the Potential of Emerging
Technologies and AI in Thailand: Trends, Applications, and Challenges in Shaping Education.
Journal of Learning Sciences and Education, 2023. 2(1): p. 122-154.
[23] Liang, W., et al., Advances, challenges and opportunities in creating data for trustworthy AI. Nature
Machine Intelligence, 2022. 4(8): p. 669-677.
[24] Saura, J.R., D. Ribeiro-Soriano, and D. Palacios-Marqués, Assessing behavioral data science
privacy issues in government artificial intelligence deployment. Government Information Quarterly,
2022. 39(4): p. 101679.
[25] Watson, J., et al., Overcoming barriers to the adoption and implementation of predictive modeling
and machine learning in clinical care: what can we learn from US academic medical centers?
JAMIA open, 2020. 3(2): p. 167-172.
[26] Ferrara, E., Fairness and bias in artificial intelligence: A brief survey of sources, impacts, and
mitigation strategies. Sci, 2023. 6(1): p. 3.
[27] Charbuty, B. and A. Abdulazeez, Classification based on decision tree algorithm for machine
learning. Journal of Applied Science and Technology Trends, 2021. 2(01): p. 20-28.
[28] Dhall, D., R. Kaur, and M. Juneja, Machine learning: a review of the algorithms and its
applications. Proceedings of ICRIC 2019: Recent innovations in computing, 2020: p. 47-63.
[29] Kost, S., O. Rheinbach, and H. Schaeben, Using logistic regression model selection towards
interpretable machine learning in mineral prospectivity modeling. Geochemistry, 2021. 81(4): p.
125826.
[30] Stiglic, G., et al., Comprehensive decision tree models in bioinformatics. PloS one, 2012. 7(3): p.
e33812.
[31] Abbas, N., Y. Nasser, and K.E. Ahmad, Recent advances on artificial intelligence and learning
techniques in cognitive radio networks. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and
Networking, 2015. 2015: p. 1-20.
[32] Feng, G., et al., Feature subset selection using naive Bayes for text classification. Pattern
Recognition Letters, 2015. 65: p. 109-115.
[33] Dongare, A., R. Kharde, and A.D. Kachare, Introduction to artificial neural network. International
Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT), 2012. 2(1): p. 189-194.
[34] Seni, G. and J. Elder, Ensemble methods in data mining: improving accuracy through combining
predictions. 2010: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
[35] Musso, M.F., C.F.R. Hernández, and E.C. Cascallar, Predicting key educational outcomes in
academic trajectories: a machine-learning approach. Higher education, 2020. 80(5): p. 875-894.
[36] Hussain, S. and M.Q. Khan, Student-performulator: Predicting students’ academic performance at
secondary and intermediate level using machine learning. Annals of data science, 2023. 10(3): p.
637-655.
[37] Alhazmi, E. and A. Sheneamer, Early predicting of students performance in higher education. IEEE
Access, 2023. 11: p. 27579-27589.
[38] Xu, X., et al., Prediction of academic performance associated with internet usage behaviors using
machine learning algorithms. Computers in Human Behavior, 2019. 98: p. 166-173.

19
[39] Ojajuni, O., et al. Predicting student academic performance using machine learning. in
Computational Science and Its Applications–ICCSA 2021: 21st International Conference, Cagliari,
Italy, September 13–16, 2021, Proceedings, Part IX 21. 2021. Springer.
[40] Adnan, M., et al., Predicting at-risk students at different percentages of course length for early
intervention using machine learning models. Ieee Access, 2021. 9: p. 7519-7539.
[41] Khan, I., et al., An artificial intelligence approach to monitor student performance and devise
preventive measures. Smart Learning Environments, 2021. 8: p. 1-18.
[42] Costa, E.B., et al., Evaluating the effectiveness of educational data mining techniques for early
prediction of students' academic failure in introductory programming courses. Computers in human
behavior, 2017. 73: p. 247-256.
[43] Cano, A. and J.D. Leonard, Interpretable multiview early warning system adapted to
underrepresented student populations. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2019. 12(2):
p. 198-211.
[44] Gupta, S. and A.S. Sabitha, Deciphering the attributes of student retention in massive open online
courses using data mining techniques. Education and Information Technologies, 2019. 24(3): p.
1973-1994.
[45] Khan, I., et al. Tracking student performance in introductory programming by means of machine
learning. in 2019 4th mec international conference on big data and smart city (icbdsc). 2019. IEEE.
[46] Sharma, P., et al. Student engagement detection using emotion analysis, eye tracking and head
movement with machine learning. in International Conference on Technology and Innovation in
Learning, Teaching and Education. 2022. Springer.
[47] Alam, A. and A. Mohanty. Predicting students’ performance employing educational data mining
techniques, machine learning, and learning analytics. in International Conference on
Communication, Networks and Computing. 2022. Springer.
[48] Kiranmai, S.A. and A.J. Laxmi, Data mining for classification of power quality problems using
WEKA and the effect of attributes on classification accuracy. Protection and Control of Modern
Power Systems, 2018. 3(1): p. 1-12.
[49] Tharwat, A., Classification assessment methods. Applied Computing and Informatics, 2018.
[50] Arlot, S. and A. Celisse, A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection. Statistics
surveys, 2010. 4: p. 40-79.
[51] Theng, D. and K.K. Bhoyar, Feature selection techniques for machine learning: a survey of more
than two decades of research. Knowledge and Information Systems, 2024. 66(3): p. 1575-1637.
[52] Xie, J., M. Sage, and Y.F. Zhao, Feature selection and feature learning in machine learning
applications for gas turbines: A review. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2023.
117: p. 105591.
[53] Omuya, E.O., G.O. Okeyo, and M.W. Kimwele, Feature selection for classification using principal
component analysis and information gain. Expert Systems with Applications, 2021. 174: p. 114765.
[54] Mishra, S., et al., Performance evaluation of a proposed machine learning model for chronic
disease datasets using an integrated attribute evaluator and an improved decision tree classifier.
Applied Sciences, 2020. 10(22): p. 8137.
[55] Wang, J., et al., Generalizing to unseen domains: A survey on domain generalization. IEEE
transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 2022. 35(8): p. 8052-8072.
[56] Ahuja, A., L. Al-Zogbi, and A. Krieger, Application of noise-reduction techniques to machine
learning algorithms for breast cancer tumor identification. Computers in Biology and Medicine,
2021. 135: p. 104576.
[57] Khan, I., et al., A Conceptual Framework to Aid Attribute Selection in Machine Learning Student
Performance Prediction Models. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 2021.
15(15).
[58] Attwal, K.P.S. and A.S. Dhiman, Exploring data mining tool-Weka and using Weka to build and
evaluate predictive models. Adv. Appl. Math. Sci, 2020. 19(6): p. 451-469.
[59] Khan, I., et al., Machine Learning Prediction and Recommendation Framework to Support
Introductory Programming Course. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning,
2021. 16(17).

AI-Based Early Prediction and Intervention for Student Academic Performance in Higher Education

More Related Content

Similar to AI-Based Early Prediction and Intervention for Student Academic Performance in Higher Education (20)

More from gerogepatton (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

AI-Based Early Prediction and Intervention for Student Academic Performance in Higher Education