Predicting Students’ Outcome in an Introductory Programming Course: Leveraging the Student Background
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
No comments.
Author Response
Please consider our rebuttal letter uploaded.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRecommendations;
1. P.5, Table 1
CAL, PHY, ALG, MET, INT, GPA have “[1.0, 7.0]” in the Description, however the meaning of “[1.0, 7.0]” is not provide either in the caption of Table 1, nor in the main text. Because Grading system including definition of GPA is not unique among nations, it is better to explain the meaning of “[1.0, 7.0]” including grade is REAL or integer.
2. P.6, lines 3-4
How many records he data set has? Is it 2,373 as shown in line 3? If 2,373, explain why 1 record is excluded from 1.191 “pass” + 1,181 “fail”.
In Table 4, “n” for “All” is 2372 which is sum of n_pass and n_fail..
Also, “1.191” should be “1,191” (not “.” But “,” as expressed through this article.)
3. P.6, line 8 from bottom
Authors wrote “ (above 15%)” however the unit of difference between two ratios, %, should be express “point” or “%point” instead of “%.”
4. P.7, Table 2
Rows “CAL L_THEO” and “ALG L_LAB” show the grades of CAL and ALG are associated to “Lecturer.” If the gradings are related to the lecturers, it is recommended to explain the potential reasons, otherwise, the analysis on Subset shown in Table 5 using CAL and ALG, especially Electricity and Geography, needs to be explain.
5. Line 262, 263, and so on
Although authors express “CI=[0.607, 0.680]” for “Confidence interval” without the explain near the first appearance, line 262. Abbreviation on P.12 lists CI with full spell, but it is noted after the main text.
Author Response
Please consider our rebuttal letter uploaded.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is indeed engaging, and the clarity of the writing meets the expectations of interested readership. However, the topic chosen has seen extensive coverage in the literature, and it given the breadth of existing work on this subject, it may not immediately capture the interest of a broader audience.
Nevertheless, utilization of machine learning methods undoubtedly brings a very usefull perspective to the field.
In any case, the study is enough interested and well conducted.
Author Response
Please consider our rebuttal letter uploaded.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
