| Literature DB >> 35813413 |
Abstract
In my country, vocational training is an important part of the educational system. In my country's vocational education system, there is currently a conscious focus on reform and innovation. It is critical to undertake a thorough assessment of teaching quality in vocational education in order to improve teaching quality. Artificial intelligence technology, particularly deep learning technology, can successfully handle this challenge because of the various and complicated aspects involved in the assessment of teaching quality. This article thus provides an evaluation approach for the quality of vocational education that is based on a thorough investigation. Finally, research has demonstrated that this approach is capable of objectively and fairly evaluating a teacher's teaching quality, increasing a teacher's teaching passion, improving a teacher's teaching quality, and nurturing extraordinary abilities.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35813413 PMCID: PMC9270111 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1499420
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Figure 1Artificial neuron model.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of three-layer BP neural network structure.
Evaluation indicator table.
| Indicator category | Label |
|---|---|
| Rigorous lesson preparation |
|
| Homework correction, tutoring students |
|
| Systemicity of content |
|
| Clearly express complex issues |
|
| Heuristic, auxiliary teaching methods |
|
| Key points, difficult points to deal with |
|
| Motivate students' enthusiasm |
|
| Teaching students according to their aptitude |
|
| Focus on inspiration |
|
| Focus on communicating and interacting with students |
|
| Whether the student's requirements are strict and fair |
|
| Student ability improvement |
|
Figure 3BP neural network model for teaching quality assessment.
Figure 4System implementation process.
Figure 5The number of nodes in the hidden layer of the network and the error.
Normalized training data.
| Enter | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.53 | 0.64 | 0.58 | 0.66 | 0.96 | 0.82 | 0.72 | 0.59 |
|
| 0.61 | 0.53 | 0.68 | 0.88 | 0.73 | 0.99 | 0.93 | 0.59 |
|
| 0.73 | 0.61 | 0.58 | 0.97 | 0.85 | 0.75 | 0.63 | 0.67 |
|
| 0.62 | 0.85 | 0.94 | 0.73 | 0.59 | 0.82 | 0.71 | 0.66 |
|
| 0.55 | 0.97 | 0.49 | 0.53 | 0.84 | 0.45 | 0.64 | 0.77 |
|
| 0.58 | 0.99 | 0.86 | 0.56 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.67 | 0.54 |
|
| 0.53 | 0.64 | 0.58 | 0.66 | 0.96 | 0.82 | 0.72 | 0.59 |
|
| 0.61 | 0.53 | 0.68 | 0.88 | 0.73 | 0.99 | 0.93 | 0.59 |
|
| 0.58 | 0.99 | 0.86 | 0.56 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.67 | 0.54 |
|
| 0.62 | 0.85 | 0.94 | 0.73 | 0.59 | 0.82 | 0.71 | 0.66 |
|
| 0.53 | 0.64 | 0.58 | 0.66 | 0.96 | 0.82 | 0.72 | 0.59 |
|
| 0.63 | 0.71 | 0.98 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.65 |
Validation data after normalization.
| Enter | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.55 | 0.68 | 0.57 | 0.58 | 0.96 |
|
| 0.66 | 0.59 | 0.72 | 0.88 | 0.96 |
|
| 0.78 | 0.64 | 0.59 | 0.96 | 0.85 |
|
| 0.58 | 0.75 | 0.93 | 0.65 | 0.68 |
|
| 0.59 | 0.99 | 0.55 | 0.67 | 0.79 |
|
| 0.57 | 0.91 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.74 |
|
| 0.65 | 0.58 | 0.77 | 0.98 | 0.66 |
|
| 0.76 | 0.69 | 0.52 | 0.98 | 0.86 |
|
| 0.68 | 0.74 | 0.99 | 0.56 | 0.85 |
|
| 0.78 | 0.95 | 0.63 | 0.75 | 0.58 |
|
| 0.89 | 0.59 | 0.95 | 0.77 | 0.69 |
|
| 0.67 | 0.81 | 0.99 | 0.72 | 0.84 |
Figure 6Comparison of neural network training results and actual evaluation results.
Figure 7Test set test results compared to actual evaluation.