Agentic education · Learning science

Actionable companion · Motivation & engagement

Learning with agency: Utilizing grid search cross-validation with adaptive boosting for augmenting performance of machine learning models

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not claims or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.

Read original paperSearch paper agentCC BY 4.0

Evidence and context

Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Higher education. Verify the participant population and task before transferring the findings.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

Abstract Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has increased the importance of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) instigating students to study from their homes. Every day a tremendous amount of data is generated when students interact with VLEs to perform different activities and access learning material. To make the generated data useful, it must be processed and managed by the proper machine learning (ML) algorithm. ML algorithms’ applications are many folds with Education Data Mining (EDM) and Learning Analytics (LA) as their major fields. ML algorithms are commonly used to process raw data to discover hidden patterns and construct a model to make future predictions, such as predicting students’ performance, dropouts, engagement, etc. However, in VLE, it is important to select the right and most applicable ML algorithm to give the best performance results. In this study, we aim to improve those ML and DL algorithms’ performance that give an inferior performance in terms of performance, accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. Several ML algorithms were applied on Open University Learning Analytics (OULA) dataset to reveal which one offers the best results in terms of performance, accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. Two popular ML algorithms called Decision Tree (DT) and Feed-Forward Neural Network (FFNN) provided unsatisfactory results. They were selected and experimented with various techniques such as grid search cross-validation, adaptive boosting, extreme gradient boosting, early stopping, feature engineering, and dropping inactive neurons to improve their performance scores. Moreover, we also determined the feature weights/importance in predicting the students’ study performance, leading to the design and development of the adaptive learning system. The ML techniques and the methods used in this research study can be used by instructors/administrators to optimize learning content and provide informed guidance to students, thus improving their learning experience and making it exciting and adaptive. Keywords: Cross validation, Adaptive boosting, Performance augmentation, Machine learning, Grid search

What kind of evidence is this?

Intelligent tutoring & adaptive learning · Design requires full-text appraisal

Stage: Higher education. Screening labels describe reported context and study-design language. They are not a risk-of-bias rating or proof of effectiveness for an age band.

Limitations and uncertainty · source passage

We selected 11 ML and 1 DL algorithms to train the learner model and predict which one gives the best results. Gradient boosting, extra tree classifier, random forest’ criterion = ‘gini’, and random forest’ criterion = ‘entropy’ classifiers give the highest performance scores. However, we selected DT and FFNN models for performance improvement, as one of the objectives of this study is to improve models performance in an environment where they show unsatisfactory performance results.

Design the system before the pilot

Document the learner model, mastery rule, hint sequence and adaptation signal. Compare adaptive routing with the same content in a non-adaptive sequence. Check whether early errors lead to persistent low-expectation pathways.

  • Measure engagement separately from achievement. Check whether novelty-driven participation persists and whether it translates to independent performance.

A 90-day district pilot

  1. Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
  2. Days 16–30 · Design. Choose one disciplinary task. Require a first attempt, a documented AI consultation, a critique of the output and an independent explanation. Align the comparison group and scoring rubric with the same objective. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
  3. Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
  4. Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning and accuracy on a new task without AI. Distinguish model examination scores, student perceptions and actual learner gains; only the last directly tests educational benefit. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Muhammad Adnan; Alaa Abdul Salam Alarood; M Irfan Uddin; Izaz ur Rehman. Utilizing grid search cross-validation with adaptive boosting for augmenting performance of machine learning models. PeerJ Computer Science (2022-02-21). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.803

Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.