| Literature DB >> 36089968 |
Abstract
The current new round of scientific and technological revolution represented by artificial intelligence is rapidly driving a new wave of development of the times, and the rapid iterative update of science and technology is triggering new changes in educational concepts and educational thinking methods. Only by deeply understanding the reshaping of education concept, teaching concept, and learning concept by the new generation of scientific and technological revolution, as well as the major opportunities and challenges brought to education, can we understand the future direction of the development of ideological and political education for college students. This study takes the ideological and political education and teaching of college students as the research object. It begins by defining artificial intelligence and the ideological and political education of college students and analyzes the new concepts of precise individualization, intelligent teaching, and evaluation brought by artificial intelligence to the ideological and political education of college students. Then, it selects the students who have studied ideological and political education network resources as the empirical objects, designs a questionnaire based on the emotional characteristics of the resources, implements a questionnaire survey, uses the Stata software to conduct a correlation analysis on the acceptance of the students, and finally verifies the resources. Combined with empirical results, this article analyzes the influence of emotional characteristics of resources on students' acceptance, reveals the carrier role of ideological and political network resources in school emotional education and students through mirror theory and student response theory, respectively, and establishes the principle of graded reading guidance.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36089968 PMCID: PMC9458389 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7492655
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Figure 1The difficulty map of college students learning the theoretical course of ideological and political network resources.
Influence of subject background on the educational attitude of college students on ideological and political network resources empowered by artificial intelligence.
|
| A very supportive | B general support | C support | D general objection | E very much against | Subtotal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (A) Humanities and social sciences | 148 (29.72%) | 202 (40.56%) | 115 (23.09%) | 29 (5.82%) | 4 (0.80%) | 498 |
| (B) Science | 101 (27.90%) | 138 (38.12%) | 100 (27.62%) | 19 (5.25%) | 4 (1.10%) | 362 |
| (C) Engineering | 46 (27.06%) | 73 (42.94%) | 42 (24.71%) | 5 (2.94%) | 4 (2.35%) | 170 |
Figure 2The concept change diagram brought by artificial intelligence to the ideological and political education of college students.
Figure 3Service map of ideological and political education for college students based on artificial intelligence.
Effect table of ideological and political education for college students based on artificial intelligence.
| Options | Subtotal | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|
| (A) Develop a personalized learning plan | 599 | 58.16 |
| (B) Comprehensive testing and learning of knowledge points | 634 | 61.55 |
| (C) Comprehensively improve learning efficiency | 700 | 67.96 |
| (D) Equitable distribution of educational resources | 542 | 52.62 |
| (E) Promote the all-round development of students | 430 | 41.75 |
Figure 4The harvest map of the ideological and political education of college students based on artificial intelligence.
Advantages of ideological and political education for college students based on artificial intelligence.
| Options | Subtotal | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|
| (A) Students learn more efficiently | 459 | 44.56 |
| (B) Conducive to interactive learning among classmates | 516 | 50.1 |
| (C) Effectively improve students' grades | 459 | 44.56 |
| (D) Helping students achieve personalized learning | 682 | 66.21 |
| (E) Teachers are more efficient in teaching | 344 | 33.4 |
| (F) Provide more educational resources for students and teachers | 435 | 42.23 |
Dilemma of ideological and political education of college students empowered by artificial intelligence.
| Options | Subtotal | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|
| (A) The learning data are sparse and the learning model is partial | 513 | 49.81 |
| (B) The scope of use of teaching products is single | 587 | 56.99 |
| (C) The teaching platform is not open and shared enough | 658 | 63.88 |
| (E) Teachers and students are not suitable | 500 | 18.54 |
| (H) Students are not highly motivated to participate | 461 | 44.76 |
| (I) Students and teachers are overly dependent | 269 | 26.12 |
Map of issues of concern in promoting artificial intelligence-based ideological and political education.
| Options | Subtotal | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|
| (A) Focus on improving the comprehensive ability of teachers | 482 | 46.8 |
| (B) Committed to cultivating innovative talents for artificial intelligence | 782 | 75.92 |
| (C) Strengthen the development of artificial intelligence education platform technology | 696 | 67.57 |
| (D) Strengthen infrastructure construction to achieve large-scale coverage | 467 | 45.34 |
Figure 5Model of factors influencing the acceptance of ideological and political education network resources.
Descriptive statistics of each variable.
| Variable | Number of samples | Mean | Standard deviation | Minimum | Maximum value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TA | 6248 | 3.837 | 1.068 | 1 | 5 |
| Story | 6248 | 0.705 | 0.456 | 0 | 1 |
| Positive | 6248 | 15.318 | 7.565 | 6 | 36 |
| Negative | 6248 | −2.637 | 3.644 | −13 | 0 |
| Diversity | 6248 | 0.359 | 0.219 | 0 | 7 |
| Characters | 6248 | 2.795 | 1.740 | 0 | 8 |
| Common words | 6248 | 355.273 | 106.833 | 159 | 606 |
| Difficult words | 6248 | 110.868 | 35.651 | 51 | 224 |
| Illustration | 6248 | 1.909 | 0.733 | 1 | 3 |
Overall regression results.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explanatory variables | ols | ols | ols | ols | ols | wls |
|
| ||||||
| Story | 0.400 | 0.0742 | 0.106 | |||
| (13.71) | (1.50) | (2.44) | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Positive | −0.00667 | −0.00581 | −0.00487 | |||
| (−3.77) | (−2.79) | (−2.64) | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Negative | −0.0355 | 0.00844 | 0.00514 | |||
| (−9.65) | (1.73) | (1.22) | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Diversity | 0.950 | 0.747 | 0.440 | |||
| (15.73) | (6.98) | (4.68) | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Characters | 0.0885 | 0.0325 | 0.0276 | |||
| (11.52) | (2.84) | (2.81) | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Common words | −0.00119 | −0.000925 | ||||
| (−4.73) | (−4.30) | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Difficult words | 0.00423 | 0.00336 | ||||
| (5.43) | (5.10) | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Illustration | −0.0519 | −0.0427 | ||||
| (−2.77) | (−2.62) | |||||
|
| ||||||
| _Cons | 3.555 | 3.846 | 3.496 | 3.590 | 3.591 | 3.977 |
| (145.18) | (120.11) | (137.47) | (141.87) | (53.74) | (68.42) | |
|
| ||||||
| N | 6248 | 6248 | 6248 | 6248 | 6248 | 6248 |
Note. , , indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively; the t values of the variables are in brackets.
Regression results of male and female groups.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explanatory variables | ols | ols | ols | ols | ols | wls |
|
| ||||||
| Story | 0.000661 | 0.0231 | 0.0625 | 0.123 | 0.135 | 0.159 |
| (0.01) | (0.33) | (1.02) | (1.87) | (1.98) | (2.61) | |
|
| ||||||
| Positive | −0.00641 | −0.00773 | −0.00760 | −0.00249 | −0.00354 | −0.00165 |
| (−2.22) | (−2.60) | (−2.93) | (−0.89) | (−1.23) | (−0.64) | |
|
| ||||||
| Negative | 0.00629 | 0.0139 | 0.00945 | −0.00508 | 0.00201 | 0.000530 |
| (0.93) | (1.99) | (1.58) | (−0.78) | (0.30) | (0.09) | |
|
| ||||||
| Diversity | 0.556 | 0.655 | 0.322 | 0.762 | 0.857 | 0.577 |
| (3.68) | (4.29) | (2.42) | (5.22) | (5.80) | (4.38) | |
|
| ||||||
| Characters | 0.0590 | 0.0465 | 0.0412 | 0.0288 | 0.0160 | 0.0123 |
| (3.81) | (2.85) | (2.97) | (1.92) | (1.01) | (0.89) | |
|
| ||||||
| Common words | −0.00126 | −0.000922 | −0.00112 | −0.000939 | ||
| (−3.50) | (−3.02) | (−3.20) | (−3.12) | |||
|
| ||||||
| Difficult words | 0.00441 | 0.00324 | 0.00401 | 0.00348 | ||
| (3.97) | (3.47) | (3.73) | (3.79) | |||
|
| ||||||
| Illustration | −0.0432 | −0.0359 | −0.0623 | −0.0509 | ||
| (−1.62) | (−1.56) | (−2.41) | (−2.23) | |||
|
| ||||||
| _Cons | 3.541 | 3.606 | 4.048 | 3.475 | 3.574 | 3.895 |
| (58.06) | (37.83) | (49.23) | (58.90) | (38.77) | (47.84) | |
| N | 3 388 | 3 388 | 3 388 | 3 388 | 3 388 | 3 388 |
Note. , , indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively; the t values of the variables are in brackets.