Retrospective evaluation of early-warning models may not reflect information available when predictions are issued and outcomes become observable. We developed a time-synchronous prequential framework for online prediction of next-week student disengagement, operationalised as inactivity onset, from Moodle logs. Ordered by calendar time, models were updated only with available outcomes and remained unchanged for all predictions at each prediction cutoff; development, calibration and evaluation were chronologically separate. We compared stochastic gradient descent logistic regression (SGD-LR), online sequential extreme learning machine (OSELM) and echo state network (ESN) across predictive performance, fixed, frozen and rolling threshold policies, calendar-time variation and four behavioural feature sets. Held-out evaluation comprised 49,329 predictions with 37.68% inactivity-onset prevalence. Discrimination was similar (average precision 0.665-0.679; ROC-AUC 0.755-0.774). OSELM had the highest recall, SGD-LR the highest precision and specificity, and ESN the highest Matthews correlation coefficient and balanced accuracy. Lower thresholds increased recall and alert volume, whereas rolling adaptation did not improve MCC over frozen thresholds. Weekly performance and calibrated-probability distributions varied without sustained deterioration. During model selection, cumulative-and-temporal features achieved the highest individual-set AP, with modest gains from combining all feature groups. These findings indicate that streaming early-warning evaluation should consider calibration, threshold-dependent performance, alert burden and calendar-time variation alongside aggregate discrimination.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Time-synchronous prequential evaluation framework for next-week inactivity-onset prediction.
Feature group
p
Measures
Current activity
7
Log-transformed counts of total events, views, submissions, attempts, downloads, posts, and other actions in the current week.
Cumulative and temporal
8
Week-to-week change in log events; positive-change indicator; mean and standard deviation of log events to date; active-week rate; log mean event count to date; and the mean and standard deviation of log events over the most recent four weeks.
Risk history
7
Log active-streak length; log preceding-inactivity length; log maximum inactivity run to date; inactive-week rate; log inactivity-spell count; reactivation after at least two inactive weeks; and log reactivation count.
All features
22
All current-activity, cumulative-and-temporal, and risk-history predictors.
Table 1: Behavioural feature groups used during model development.
Model
Development search
Selected configuration
SGD-LR
Four feature sets; η0∈{0.01,0.03,0.10} ; λ∈{10−4,10−3,10−2} .
All 22 features; η0=0.01 ; λ=0.01 ; δ=0.001 .
OSELM
Four feature sets; hidden units ∈{16,32,64} ; ridge ∈{0.1,1,10} .
Table 2: Development search spaces and selected model configurations.
Model
τ
AP
ROC- AUC
MCC
F1
Precision
Recall
Specificity
Balanced accuracy
SGD-LR
0.45
0.665
0.755
0.396
0.603
0.656
0.557
0.823
0.690
OSELM
0.35
0.670
0.766
0.405
0.643
0.601
0.692
0.722
0.707
ESN
0.40
0.679
0.774
0.423
0.636
0.648
0.625
0.795
0.710
Table 3: Held-out performance at model-specific frozen thresholds ( n=49,329 ; prevalence =37.68% ); ESN had the highest point estimates for AP, ROC-AUC, MCC and balanced accuracy.
Model
Policy
τ
MCC
Recall
Alert rate (%)
SGD-LR
Fixed
0.300
0.346
0.736
51.37
SGD-LR
Fixed
0.500
0.386
0.489
26.90
SGD-LR
Frozen MCC
0.450
0.396
0.557
32.01
SGD-LR
Rolling MCC
0.450
0.387
0.551
31.86
OSELM
Fixed
0.300
0.392
0.738
48.64
OSELM
Fixed
0.500
0.400
0.545
30.75
Table 4: Threshold-policy performance; lower thresholds increased recall and alert rate, while rolling thresholds did not improve aggregate MCC over frozen thresholds. For rolling policies, τ is the observation-weighted mean threshold.
Figure 2: Weekly held-out AP (a) and MCC (b) for the three models; MCC varied more across weeks than AP, with no significant temporal trend in either measure. Breaks indicate non-estimable weeks; hollow markers denote n<50 .
Figure 3: Weekly prevalence, mean calibrated probability and probability-distribution drift relative to calibration; drift was episodic and broadly aligned across models, with the largest shifts in July and December 2017. Breaks indicate weeks with n<50 .
Model
Feature set
No. features
AP
ROC-AUC
Raw Brier
SGD-LR
Current
7
0.593
0.711
0.239
SGD-LR
Cumulative and temporal
8
0.696
0.759
0.199
SGD-LR
Risk history
7
0.664
0.727
0.217
SGD-LR
All features
22
0.704
0.769
0.192
OSELM
Current
7
0.596
0.725
0.213
OSELM
Cumulative and temporal
8
0.684
0.759
0.205
Table 5: Model-selection performance across four feature sets; the combined 22-feature set achieved the highest AP and ROC-AUC and lowest raw Brier score for all models.
Early-warning models built from Learning Management System (LMS) logs aim to predict end-of-course outcomes early enough to enable timely learner support. However, reported "early" performance is often inflated by temporal leakage. This occurs when the pipeline uses information that would not yet be available at the time of prediction. We formalize cutoff-based early outcome prediction under a temporal availability constraint and introduce LEAP (Leakage-Excluded Early-Availability Protocol), which enforces cutoff-first truncation prior to joins and aggregation and audits feature provenance to prevent post-cutoff evidence from entering the benchmark. We instantiate LEAP on the public Open University Learning Analytics Dataset (OULAD) as a multi-step protocol for leakage-controlled evaluation across weekly cutoffs. Using several standard learning methods, we evaluate performance using ROC-AUC, PR-AUC, Brier score, and [email protected]. Results show improving performance as the observation window expands, with a marked gain around week~3; Random Forest performs best at the earliest cutoffs, while Gradient Boosting dominates thereafter. Leakage ablations further show that temporal violations, especially through assessment information, can inflate apparent "early" performance.
Ngoc Luyen Le, Marie-Hélène Abel, Bertrand Laforge
Gamaizer, 93340 Le Raincy, France · Université de technologie de Compiègne, CNRS, Heudiasyc (Heuristics and Diagnosis of Complex Systems), CS 60319 - 60203 Compiègne Cedex, France · Sorbonne Université, CNRS UMR 7585, LPMHE (Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire et des Hautes Énergies), 75252 Paris cedex 05, France
Sustained effort is essential for realizing the benefits of intelligent tutoring systems (ITS), yet many learners disengage or underuse available practice time. We introduce engagement forecasting as a supervised prediction task based on ITS logs, targeting two outcomes central to effort and learning progress: minutes practiced per week and new skills mastered per week. Using interaction log data from 425 middle-school students over a school year, we benchmark fifteen predictors including regressions, decision trees, and neural networks. We show that these feature-based models reduce mean absolute error (MAE) by 22-33% relative to heuristic baselines, including fixed-percentile rules adapted from prior work in other behavioral domains. We find that percentile heuristics systematically overpredict, whereas feature-based models better track student practice trajectories across weeks. To support explainability, we analyze feature importance and ablations, revealing target-specific patterns: effort forecasting is driven mainly by recent activity features, while progress forecasting depends more on learner-state and content difficulty signals. Finally, in a semi-structured user interview case study with eight college tutors, we examine how tutors reasoned about system-generated predictive features when setting goals with students. We find that tutors reasoned differently about effort versus progress goals in ways that mirror our pattern analysis. Together, these results establish a reproducible benchmark for forecasting weekly effort and learning progress in ITS. By making patterns of sustained effort and progress visible at a weekly timescale, engagement forecasting offers a foundation for supporting tutor-learner goal setting and timely instructional decisions.
Eric S. Qiu, Danielle R. Thomas, Boyuan Guo +2
Cornell University · Ithaca, NY, USA · Carnegie Mellon University +1
The prediction of student engagement from the online tutoring videos is difficult because engagement is a multidimensional construct comprising distinct behavioral, emotional, and cognitive states. A reliable prediction requires bringing together different types of behavioral signals as well as expressive cues. Through our analysis of the CASED dataset, it is clear that engagement prediction gets even harder due to the high inter-person variability as well as the subjectivity of the engagement annotation. To tackle these challenges, we develop a multimodal framework that integrates the implicit spatiotemporal features extracted from pretrained video, audio, and image encoders along with structured behavioral modalities like head pose, gaze, facial action units, emotion, and wavelet-based audio features. We integrate these modalities via a Perceiver IO latent bottleneck. Moreover, student and instructor personalities are modeled as variational posteriors over learnable embeddings to enable partial pooling across participants. We employ evidential regression and spectral-normalized Gaussian process classification heads for uncertainty-aware prediction to further improve robustness and calibration. Benchmark on the CASED challenge test set shows that all participating methods converge near random-chance performance, revealing the difficulty of the dataset. In this highly ambiguous regime, our framework achieves competitive performance while uniquely offering well-calibrated uncertainty metrics, demonstrating that reliable risk-quantification is an essential prerequisite for deploying engagement models in real-world educational tools.
Alperen Kantarci, Visvanathan Ramesh, Gemma Roig
Institute of Computer Science Goethe University Frankfurt Frankfurt am Main, Germany · Institute of Computer Science Goethe University Frankfurt The Hessian Center for Artificial Intelligence Frankfurt am Main, Germany