| Literature DB >> 36111064 |
Qingwei Lan1, Ning Fan2.
Abstract
In order to speed up the process of high-quality education and improve the level of education quality among the general public, people have pushed for the use of music art education in recent years. In this respect, this study covers the CNN-based assessment of the quality of music art teaching and creates a set of evaluation indices for that quality. The model architecture, network topology, learning parameters, and learning algorithm are all determined using this information, which also acts as the basis for the NN assessment model. The MATLAB simulation tool uses the CNN assessment model to train and learn a predetermined quantity of instructional quality data. The training experiment shows that this system can outperform other comparative systems in prediction accuracy by roughly 95%. Additionally, both the training and prediction accuracy of the model are completely acceptable. The evaluation findings and analytical data of the music art instructional quality assessment system created in this study can be used as a guide for determining the music art instructional quality and for making judgments regarding it.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36111064 PMCID: PMC9470303 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1668750
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Figure 1Basic neuron model.
Figure 2CNN structure model.
Evaluation index of music art instructional quality.
| Primary index | Secondary index | |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation index system of music art instructional quality | Instructional attitude | Rigorous lesson preparation and complete lesson plan |
| Tutor students patiently | ||
| Instructional ability | Systematization of teaching content | |
| Integrating theory with practice | ||
| Auxiliary teaching means | ||
| Treatment of key and difficult points | ||
| Language organization, clean writing on the blackboard | ||
| Mobilize students' enthusiasm | ||
| Content of courses | Choose and handle the content properly | |
| Highlighted content | ||
| Instructional method | Teaching students in accordance with their aptitude and flexible methods | |
| Pay attention to inspiration and ability | ||
| Pay attention to communication and interaction with students | ||
| Instructional effect | Students have a comprehensive grasp of knowledge points | |
| Improving students' aesthetic ability |
Figure 3Schematic diagram of network training error.
Figure 4Schematic diagram of experimental test error.
Figure 5Comparison of F-values of different models.
Figure 6Comparison of prediction accuracy of different models.
Prediction results of different models.
| Sample | Multivariate linearity | Partial least squares | CNN | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted value | Relative error | Predicted value | Relative error | Predicted value | Relative error | |
| 21 | 7.1941 | 7.21 | 7.5608 | 8.45 | 6.0416 | 0.36 |
| 22 | 7.3632 | 4.89 | 6.9721 | 3.74 | 6.1417 | 2.51 |
| 23 | 7.9603 | 6.53 | 8.3257 | 1.99 | 8.3916 | 1.28 |
| 24 | 8.9924 | 4.39 | 8.6214 | 6.92 | 9.7410 | 3.06 |
| 25 | 8.9042 | 5.47 | 8.7456 | 4.97 | 7.0612 | 0.39 |
Figure 7Comparison of operating efficiency of different systems.
Evaluation results after network training and expert evaluation results.
| Serial number | Expert evaluation | Network evaluation in this paper |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.754 | 0.761 |
| 2 | 0.846 | 0.849 |
| 3 | 0.902 | 0.903 |
| 4 | 0.857 | 0.851 |
| 5 | 0.869 | 0.862 |
| 6 | 0.915 | 0.918 |
| 7 | 0.841 | 0.840 |
| 8 | 0.829 | 0.828 |
| 9 | 0.932 | 0.930 |
| 10 | 0.907 | 0.909 |
Comparison between test results of test set and actual evaluation results.
| Serial number | Expert evaluation | Network evaluation in this paper |
|---|---|---|
| 11 | 0.832 | 0.833 |
| 12 | 0.859 | 0.861 |
| 13 | 0.917 | 0.915 |
| 14 | 0.882 | 0.880 |
| 15 | 0.897 | 0.899 |