Optimizing the interactive teaching method based on artificial intelligence algorithms for the integration of Olympic spirit into the Civic and Political Education in colleges and universities

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

The relationship and recognition of the Olympic spirit and the education

	Big relationship	Connect with	Not close	No relation	Total
Number	318	420	119	43	900
Percentage	35.33%	46.67%	13.22%	4.78%	100%
	Very helpful	Be helpful	General action	Unaided	Total
Number	213	477	135	75	900
Percentage	23.67%	53.00%	15.00%	8.33%	100%

Comparison analysis of the results of the experimental group

	N	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum value	Maximum value	Mean standard error	Sig.
Experimental group	50	84.39	7.759	60	75	1.124	0.001
Control group	50	78.95	5.249	60	75	0.725

Model performance indicator

Accuracy	0.945
Recall	0.711
F1-score	0.852

The experimental group and the control group were measured

Experimental group	N	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum value	Maximum value	Mean standard error	Sig.
Pretest	50	65.87	4.028	60	75	0.552	0.001
Posttest	50	84.39	7.759	60	75	1.124
Control group	N	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum value	Maximum value	Mean standard error	Sig.
Pretest	50	66.79	3.452	60	75	0.549	0.001
Posttest	50	78.95	5.249	60	75	0.725

The average ratio of classroom interaction behavior is statistically

Interactive behavior type	Behavior coding	Behavioral average ratio	Total
Teacher-student interaction	Accept affection(1)	1.54%	25.86%
	Praise(2)	2.72%
	To accept or use the student’s claim(3)	6.12%
	Open question(4)	2.44%
	Issue closure(5)	0.53%
	Students are passive(9)	12.51%
Student interaction	Do exercises(15)	2.53%	40.7%
	Student active dialogue(10)	27.22%
	Active question(11)	1.35%
	Group discussion(12)	9.6%
Technical application	Teacher control technology(16)	5.14%	12.17%
	Student manipulation(17)	3.16%
	Technical student(18)	3.87%

Improve the ability of interactive teaching mode

Topic	Very agree	Consent	Comparative consent	Different meaning	Very different	Mean
Knowledge acquisition and mastery	22(44%)	20(40%)	6(12%)	1(2%)	1(2%)	4.22
Analyze the problem and improve the problem	23(46%)	19(38%)	6(12%)	2(4%)	0(0%)	4.68
Improve your interest in learning	20(40%)	21(42%)	8(16%)	1(2%)	0(0%)	4.2
Improved cooperation and communication skills	23(46%)	20(40%)	5(10%)	2(4%)	0(0%)	4.32
Ability to learn autonomously	22(44%)	21(42%)	4(8%)	3(6%)	0(0%)	4.24
The dialectical thinking ability improves	23(46%)	15(30%)	11(22%)	1(2%)	0(0%)	4.2

Satisfaction feedback

Topic	Very agree	Consent	Comparative consent	Different meaning	Very different	Mean
This pattern is more interesting and attractive	20(40%)	17(34%)	10(20%)	3(6%)	0(0%)	4.08
Can help me find new problems	20(40%)	18(36%)	10(20%)	2(4%)	0(0%)	4.12
Change the way you think about it	19(38%)	13(26%)	16(32%)	2(4%)	0(0%)	3.98
Like this learning style	20(40%)	16(32%)	11(22%)	3(6%)	0(0%)	4.06
Accept this kind of school approach	20(40%)	15(30%)	11(22%)	3(6%)	0(0%)	3.98
I would recommend this to other students	21(42%)	15(30%)	12(24%)	2(4%)	0(0%)	4.1

Case fragment rendering

Numbering	Time stop	Interaction content	Interaction type	Interactive behavior
1	00:00-00:12	The bell rang and the teacher called to class	Teacher-student interaction	Organizational management
2	00:12-02:47	The teacher reviews the old knowledge	Teacher and student interaction - teacher control technology	guiding
3	02:47-04:06	Summarize the knowledge points in the last class	Teacher-student interaction	Guidance summary
4	04:06-04:58	Ask questions and be new	Teacher-student interaction	question
5	04:58-09:56	Team communication, try to solve problems	Student interaction student control technology	Interactive interaction
6	09:56-12:37	Panel display	student control technology	Request and response
7	12:37-13:12	Student evaluation	Student interaction	Evaluation and feedback

Test group and control group

	N	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum value	Maximum value	Mean standard error	Sig.
Experimental group	50	65.87	3.745	60	75	0.552	0.127
Control group	50	66.79	3.842	60	75	0.549