Otwarty dostęp

A Study on the Innovation of Instructional Management System in the Perspective of Machine Learning Supported Student Engagement Enhancement

  
17 mar 2025

Zacytuj
Pobierz okładkę

Introduction

Student engagement is one of the important indicators for evaluating teaching quality and plays an important role in improving teaching quality and learning effects, so it is important to improve student engagement [1-2]. In traditional teaching activities, the ways to improve student engagement include improving teaching methods, providing practical opportunities, personalized teaching and rewards, etc. However, the improvement of student engagement in these ways can only be temporary. The innovation of teaching management system is one of the most important means to continuously improve student engagement [3-6].

With the development of society and the progress of education concept, the traditional teaching management system has been unable to meet the educational transformation and upgrading and the needs of students, resulting in poor student motivation, unsatisfactory teaching results and other problems, in order to better adapt to the requirements of the times, the innovation of the teaching management system is the way to enhance student participation and promote the improvement of teaching quality [7-10]. In the traditional teaching management mode, the teacher-student relationship is mainly centered on the teacher, and the teacher is mainly responsible for imparting knowledge. Under the innovative teaching management system, this situation should be changed, and the teacher is no longer the “teacher” in traditional education, but the “mentor” and “collaborator” of the students [11-14]. The role of the teacher is more of a guide. The teacher’s role is more to guide students, encourage their ability to identify and solve problems, and provide appropriate resources and guidance. The innovation of the teaching system emphasizes the students’ subjective position, students play an active role in practice, they become the masters of their own learning and growth [15-18]. By participating in activities such as curriculum design and project practice, students not only enhance their ability to learn actively, but also develop problem-solving and teamwork skills [19-20].

In this paper, the LR algorithm is used to realize the recognition of characters such as teachers, students and teaching administrators in the teaching management system, and the AlexNet and ResNet50 networks are used to recognize the expressions and behaviors of students in the classroom. The requirements of the teaching management system are analyzed, and the system function modules are designed accordingly to build the machine learning based teaching management system. The machine learning-based teaching management system in this paper is used for empirical research, comparing it with the conventional teaching mode, designing relevant teaching experiments, collecting the pre and post-test data of the experimental group and the control group in terms of student participation and teaching quality, and examining the application effect of the machine learning-based teaching management system in this paper from the pre and post-test differences by comparing the data.

Machine learning based teaching management system
LR-based character recognition

The purpose of character recognition is to help teachers and administrators to be informed of the student’s identity information and to improve the students’ self-consciousness in completing their assignments, in this paper, we choose the LR algorithm with lower computational complexity and better robustness [21].

For LR, parameter optimization is necessary to improve the model performance. Parameter optimization, i.e., the process of solving for the optimal parameters of the loss function, includes the setting of the regularization penalty and the regularization parameter C. Under different regularization methods, different regularization parameters perform very differently in the model performance. The regularization penalty is used to specify the range of parameters to be used in the penalty, and the commonly used regularization methods are L1 regularization and L2 regularization. L1 regularization can produce sparse models, and L2 regularization can obtain very small parameters, which can be used to prevent overfitting phenomena from occurring. Regularization is achieved by adding to the loss function the L1 paradigm of the vector θ and a multiple of the L2 paradigm, respectively, where the L1 paradigm is the sum of the absolute values of each parameter in all parameter vectors, and the L2 paradigm is the value of the root of the sum of the squares of each parameter in all parameter vectors, as shown in the following formulas, respectively:

L1 Paradigm: J(θ)L1=J(θ)+1ci=1m| θj |(j1) \[J{{\left( \theta \right)}_{L1}}=J\left( \theta \right)+\frac{1}{c}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}{\left| {{\theta }_{j}} \right|}\left( j\ge 1 \right)\]

L2 Paradigms: J(θ)L2=J(θ)+1ci=1m(θj)2(j1) \[J{{\left( \theta \right)}_{L2}}=J\left( \theta \right)+\frac{1}{c}\sqrt{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}{{{\left( {{\theta }_{j}} \right)}^{2}}}}\left( j\ge 1 \right)\]

The regularization coefficient C is the reciprocal of the strength of regularization and is used to control the strength of regularization. A smaller value of C indicates a stronger regularization and a larger value of C indicates a weaker regularization. Therefore, the selection of the regularization method and the regularity coefficient is needed to improve the model performance and the accuracy of character recognition.

In this experiment, the data transmitted by the sensors are time series signals, for which statistical values are often used as feature values. Therefore, in this paper, the statistical values of the original time series will be selected as features in the character recognition part, including the maximum value, minimum value, mean value and standard deviation, and its solution formula is as follows:

Max: a=max(a1,a2,a3,,an) \[a=\max \left( {{a}_{1}},{{a}_{2}},{{a}_{3}},\ldots ,{{a}_{n}} \right)\]

Min: b=min(b1,b2,b3,,bn) \[b=\min \left( {{b}_{1}},{{b}_{2}},{{b}_{3}},\ldots ,{{b}_{n}} \right)\]

Mean: μ=1mj=1maj \[\mu =\frac{1}{m}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{m}{{{a}_{j}}}\]

Standard Deviation: σ=1mj=1m(ajμ)2 \[\sigma =\sqrt{\frac{1}{m}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{m}{{{\left( {{a}_{j}}-\mu \right)}^{2}}}}\]

Statistical feature extraction algorithm, the acceleration sensor output time series signal has a total of nine axes, respectively, for each axis to calculate the four statistical values described above, a total of 36 values are obtained as features.

The maximum and minimum values represent the highest and lowest point of an individual’s action in a certain time period, reflecting the magnitude of the action, and at the same time, there are differences in the magnitude of the same action accomplished by different people, so the maximum and minimum values can be selected as a feature for character recognition. The mean value, that is, the average value, characterizes the average level or general state of an individual’s action in a certain period of time, and its value is between the maximum value and the minimum value, and the mean value of the action that different people can maintain is different, so it can be used as an important feature for character recognition. The standard deviation can reflect the degree of dispersion of the action in a certain time period, which is intuitively described as the degree of fluctuation of the action in a certain cycle, the smaller the standard deviation is, the more stable the action is, and vice versa. Due to the limitations of different people’s body structure and physical strength, there are certain differences in the standard deviation, so the standard deviation plays a key role in reflecting the character traits, and it can be selected as a feature value for character recognition.

In this experiment, the number of features is 36 in total, which is relatively large compared to the number of samples, so feature selection is needed to eliminate redundant or invalid features, integrate the optimal features, and improve the accuracy of character recognition. In the cross-validation training process, there are two key parameters of LR, including the regularization method and the regularization parameters. By comparing the performance of the models under L1 regularization and L2 regularization and corresponding to different regularization parameters C in the test set, L2 regularization and regularization parameter of 1 are finally selected.

Student Expression and Behavior Recognition
Expression Recognition

AlexNet as a more classic convolutional neural network can be very good to complete the image classification task, due to the limitations of the equipment at that time and other reasons, the network in the expression recognition task did not show its algorithmic excellence, and then many scholars to the network framework as the basis for the study of a lot of better network, AlexNet network consists of convolutional layers and fully connected layers, at present AlexNet has been widely used in the image classification task. Been widely used in image classification tasks, the network construction of the expression recognition module in this thesis is also improved on the basis of AlexNet network [22].

Build an improved AlexNet network model

In the process of building the expression recognition model in this paper, the relationship between network depth and model accuracy is considered comprehensively, the number of network layers of the AlexNet-based improved convolutional neural network model in this summary is 8 layers in total, including 6 convolutional layers and 2 full-connectivity layers, and the input is a single-channel grayscale image of 48×48 pixels, which is highly compressed by using a small-scale convolution kernel, and the features of the image are highly compressed, so as to obtain a feature vector to retain the main features of the input samples. feature vector that retains the main features of the input samples, remove the redundant features of the samples through pooling operation, retain the sample features that are effective for expression classification, input the output weights of the upper layer into the fully connected layer for learning, and the dropout is set to 50%, i.e., randomly zero out 50% of the nodes, which is set up to make the expression recognition model less prone to overfitting, and to make the model more stable and robust.

Where the size of convolution kernel: F, the number of convolution kernels: K, the step size: S, the boundary padding: P, the size of input image: W1×H1×D1, the size of output image: W2×H2×D2, the computation process of W2, H2, D2 during the convolution process and the computation process of W2, H2, D2 during the pooling process are shown in Eqs. (7) ~ (12): W2=W1F+2PS+1 \[{{W}_{2}}=\frac{{{W}_{1}}-F+2P}{S}+1\] H2=H1F+2PS+1 \[{{H}_{2}}=\frac{{{H}_{1}}-F+2P}{S}+1\] D2=K \[{{D}_{2}}=K\] W2=W1FS+1 \[{{W}_{2}}=\frac{{{W}_{1}}-F}{S}+1\] H2=H1FS+1 \[{{H}_{2}}=\frac{{{H}_{1}}-F}{S}+1\] D2=D1 \[{{D}_{2}}={{D}_{1}}\]

Training the improved AlexNet network model

In the training process of the convolutional neural network, the classroom expression dataset is firstly imported into the expression recognition model, and the expression recognition model is trained using the training set with a total of 10,000 iterations, and in each iteration, the data with the expression discrimination rate of more than 0.6 are retained, and the rest of the data are discarded, and the model is trained and tested using a randomized batch of data as the input data for each time, so that the time for each training and testing is reduced and the accuracy of the model is not affected. This reduces the training and testing time and does not affect the accuracy of expression recognition. The output of the model is the loss value and the accuracy of the model in recognizing expressions, and the accuracy of the expression recognition is constantly updated as the loss value decreases.

Behavioral recognition
Transfer learning based on ResNet50 pre-trained model

Student behavior recognition is trained based on the structure of ResNet50 pre-trained model [23]. This method is also known as transfer learning, which refers to the influence of one kind of learning on another kind of learning, and since learning activities are always based on existing knowledge and experience, this process of continuously acquiring new knowledge by utilizing one’s own knowledge and experience can be referred to as transfer learning in a broad sense [24]. The process of transfer learning based on the structure of ResNet pre-trained model is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Process of transfer learning algorithm based on ResNet50

Setting the activation function

The activation function selected in the deep learning based student behavior recognition algorithm is ReLU. The expression of ReLU function and the derivative expression are: f(x)=max(0,x)f(x)={ 1x>00x0 $\begin{align} & f\left( x \right)=\max \left( 0,x \right) \\ & {f}'\left( x \right)=\left\{ \begin{array}{*{35}{l}} 1 & x>0 \\ 0 & x\le 0 \\ \end{array} \right. \\ \end{align}$

Selection of loss function

Traditional machine learning consists of three elements: model, strategy and algorithm, when an algorithm is selected, we have to consider what kind of strategy or criterion is used to select the optimal model, the loss function is a function used to measure how good or bad the model’s prediction result is at one time in machine learning, and it is a non-negative real value function. Generally speaking, when the model performs a forward operation it will get a prediction value, however, the prediction value is different from the real value. Therefore, we need to define a way to measure the goodness of the model, which is the loss function, the loss function is usually denoted by L(Y,f(X)), in the deep learning-based student classroom behavior recognition, we use the squared loss function, the squared loss function is a common optimization objective function in the linear regression model, and also based on the ResNet50 pre-training model for training the loss function. It is denoted as equation (14): L(Y,f(X))=(Yf(X))2 \[L(Y,\ f(X))={{(Y-f(X))}^{2}}\]

Selection of optimization algorithm

In the previous subsection, we introduced the loss function calculation method is the difference between the predicted value of the student category and the true value of the student category, of course, this difference should be minimized as much as possible, then it means that the model has the best learning effect. In mathematics, in order to calculate the minimum value of the function, that is, you need to find the rate of change of the function image, generally in the function of the largest rate of change of the function will appear in the function of the maximum value, and in the multivariate function, the gradient is a vector, the vector has a direction, the direction of the gradient points to the function at the given point in the direction of the fastest rise, then the gradient of the direction of the opposite direction of the function at the given point in the direction of the fastest decline, so in order to find the minimum of the loss function, we need to find the direction of the gradient of the loss function, and the direction opposite to its gradient is also the direction of the minimum of the loss function. The loss function we used in the previous subsection is the squared loss function, as shown in Equation (15): J(θ)=minθ12i=1m(hθ(x(i)y(i)))2 \[J\left( \theta \right)=\underset{\theta }{\mathop{\min }}\,\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}{{{\left( {{h}_{\theta }}\left( {{x}^{\left( i \right)}}-{{y}^{\left( i \right)}} \right) \right)}^{2}}}\]

where J(θ) denotes the function that minimizes the variance with respect to θ, which is actually the value of the loss function, representing the fit between the model and the training data, and then look at an equation: θi=θiαθiJ(θ) \[{{\theta }_{i}}={{\theta }_{i}}-\alpha \frac{\partial }{\partial {{\theta }_{i}}}J\left( \theta \right)\]

Where θi represents the value of the loss function, α represents the value of the learning rate, the right side of the learning rate indicates the direction of descent, so it can be seen that the learning rate determines the rate of gradient descent, if the learning rate is set too large, it may skim over the lowest point of the function, resulting in the model can not be converged, if the learning rate is set too small, resulting in the gradient descent is too slow. It can be seen that the appropriate learning rate is important for the training process, and the learning rate is set to 0.001 in this research program.

System requirements analysis
Demand analysis
User Role Analysis

The main function of the face-to-face classroom management system is to provide automated and intelligent management support functions for classroom teaching, and to improve the efficiency and quantitative evaluation of classroom teaching. It mainly provides functions including student face check-in and attendance, student abnormal behavior capture and prompt, teacher face attendance, teacher classroom management tools, comprehensive classroom evaluation and other aspects. The participants of traditional face-to-face classroom mainly consist of students, teachers and teaching management personnel. By analyzing the usage scenarios, the system will mainly include the following user roles.

(1) Student users. Docking with the school’s original system, in the student use terminal, add the classroom module. Through the classroom terminal, student users can use the services of the classroom system and cooperate with the collection of face images and accepting behavioral captures. Functional modules such as face sign-in, behavioral capture, and behavioral prompts will be nested in the classroom process of the system for automated startup and application.

(2) Teacher user. The teaching module is added to the teacher’s use terminal deployed in the classroom terminal. Teachers log in to the classroom teacher terminal and start the teaching module. They can view students’ attendance in real time, count the attendance rate and the list of non-attendance students, and click on individual students to view their historical class attendance and class performance information. At the same time, through the background monitoring of students’ behavior in class, it gives each student’s current behavioral performance score, as well as a comprehensive rating of the current classroom effect. Teachers can master the classroom performance and historical performance of each student in the teaching process, and target questions, reminders and other teaching management behaviors to improve teaching efficiency and effectiveness.

(3) Teaching managers. Teaching managers are responsible for monitoring and evaluating the quality of classroom teaching across the university, docking with the teaching management system, obtaining real-time data on classroom teaching, real-time monitoring and intervention on teaching quality, as well as after-the-fact statistics and evaluation.

Application Scenario Analysis

Starting from the use of user roles, this paper designs the system to have three application scenarios: learning scenario, teaching scenario and teaching management scenario, corresponding to the three user roles of students, teachers and teaching management personnel, relying on the system to carry out face-to-face classroom teaching management.

Learning Scenario

Students start the learning scenario of the teaching management system by conducting the classroom learning process at the system’s student terminal. In this scenario, it is mainly necessary to complete the collection and acquisition of face recognition and behavior and expression recognition data, and to accept the feedback of data on teaching management-related measures. Specifically, it includes the application of face sign-in, behavior capture, behavior reminder, classroom evaluation and so on.

Teaching Scene

Teachers conduct classroom teaching behavior at the system teacher terminal to start the teaching application scenario of the teaching management system. In this scenario, teachers will rely on the data of students’ attendance and classroom performance processed by the face recognition and behavioral recognition of the background system to instantly carry out teaching behavior management. Specific applications include behavior recognition and scoring, behavior correction, comprehensive classroom effect assessment, classroom intervention reminders and feedback, etc.

Teaching Management Scenarios

Teaching managers launch the Instructional Management System’s instructional management scenario from the background, which involves monitoring and intervening in real-time classroom performance data across the university. Specific application scenarios include school-wide real-time classroom monitoring, real-time classroom intervention, classroom quality management and other applications.

System functional analysis
System framework

According to the analysis of user scenarios and according to the user operation view, the whole system framework can be composed of three functional components, mainly including the application operation component, face recognition component, and scoring component. Among them, the application operation component is responsible for the actual application and operation part of the system, facing the actual users and providing interaction and operation interface. The face recognition component is responsible for the core functions such as face recognition and facial expression comparison. The scoring component is responsible for establishing a set of student behavior and classroom efficiency scoring models for quantitative classroom assessment. The three components are on the data flow of the core face recognition function. The application operation component is responsible for providing the user with the use interaction and obtaining the operation instructions, inputting the face data into the face recognition component, and after the face recognition component processes the results, entering the results into the scoring component, obtaining the quantitative results, and feeding back to the application operation component. The system framework is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

System framework

System function analysis

Each component is positioned according to different functions and provides different functional services according to the link in the operation process.

(1) Application operation component. It includes three components: student operation module, teacher operation module and teaching management module. The specific functional structure of the student operation module can be divided into three parts: face sign-in function, behavior monitoring function, and my classroom function. Teacher operation module function mainly includes classroom quality view, behavior correction, my classroom three parts of the function. It meets the needs of teachers’ classroom management. The functions of the teaching management module mainly include classroom monitoring, classroom intervention and quality management, realizing real-time teaching management and after-action quality evaluation of the classroom.

(2) The functional structure of the face recognition component is shown in Figure 3. It belongs to the core functional components of the system, does not directly provide operational services to users, but provides service support to application components, including face recognition engine, face template drawing, behavioral marking strategy and several other modules.

(3) Scoring component. It belongs to the quantitative result generation component of the system and only provides the query interface to the user, who initiates the relevant information query through the application operation component. Its business processing flow on the application operation component and face recognition component of the input information for modeling operations, resulting in quantitative evaluation results, feedback to the application operation component for results display. It includes functions such as student behavior scoring, comprehensive classroom scoring, and evaluation statistics.

Figure 3.

Face recognition component function structure

Teaching effectiveness

A machine learning-based teaching management system is introduced into the teaching of journalism and communication majors in a school, and two classes (experimental group and control group) in the third year of the School of Civil Engineering of the school are selected for a comparative experiment to test the student participation and teaching quality of the two groups before and after the experiment. The machine learning-based teaching management system of this paper was used in the teaching of the experimental group, while the control group was taught in a conventional way without any change. Before the experiment, Shapiro-Wilk’s method was used for the test, and the test results found that there is no significant difference between the two groups, which is suitable for the next step of the experiment.

Student engagement
Results of the post-test of student engagement in both groups

At the end of the teaching experiment, the posttest of student engagement in the experimental group and the control group was calculated again through the student expression and behavior data collected by the machine learning-based teaching management system, and the Shapiro-Wilk test was carried out on the total score of student engagement after the reverse processing of Excel and SPSS26.0 software, and the results of the test are shown in Table 1. After the Shapiro-Wilk test, the significance of the posttest scores of both groups was greater than 0.05, so the overall level of student engagement in both groups conformed to a normal distribution.

Normality test results of experimental and control group
Group N Mean P
Experimental group 50 163.95 0.526
Control group 50 130.71 0.428

After comparing the post-test results of the experimental and control groups using the independent samples t-test, the results were obtained as shown in Table 2. The overall difference in student engagement between the experimental and control groups can be seen in Table 2. In the overall student engagement score, the mean score of the experimental group (163.95) was higher than the mean score of the control group (130.71). After t-test, the results were: t-value of 2.476 and p-value of 0.004 < 0.05, which indicates that there is a significant difference in the overall student engagement results between the two groups. Among the dimensions of student engagement, the p-values of behavioral engagement (0.001), cognitive engagement (0.003), affective engagement (0.002), and social engagement (0.003) are less than 0.05, which shows that there are differences between the experimental group and the control group in all four dimensions. It can be shown that the use of machine learning-based teaching management system in teaching has a certain promotion effect on student engagement.

Post-test student participation of experimental and control group
Variable Group N Mean SD T P
Behavior participation Experimental group 50 55.87 8.124 2.165 0.001
Control group 50 45.15 10.849
Cognitive participation Experimental group 50 42.49 5.642 2.334 0.003
Control group 50 35.94 5.078
Emotional participation Experimental group 50 40.13 5.941 2.188 0.002
Control group 50 32.84 6.268
Social participation Experimental group 50 25.46 4.196 2.625 0.003
Control group 50 16.78 5.065
Total Experimental group 50 163.95 20.462 2.476 0.004
Control group 50 130.71 24.546
Pre- and post-test results of student engagement in the experimental group

In order to verify the impact of the machine learning-based instructional management system on the experimental group, the results of the pre- and post-tests of student engagement in the experimental group were subjected to a paired-sample t-test, the results of which are shown in Table 3. As can be seen in Table 3, the p-values of behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement, affective engagement and social engagement and total student engagement of the students in the experimental group before and after the application of the instructional management system are less than 0.05, and the differences are significant.

Pre-test and post-test student participation of experimental group
Variable Pre/post-test N Mean SD T P
Behavior participation Pre-test 50 44.45 7.984 -3.789 0.001
Post-test 50 55.87 8.124
Cognitive participation Pre-test 50 35.89 5.168 -2.485 0.002
Post-test 50 42.49 5.642
Emotional participation Pre-test 50 33.19 6.458 -3.169 0.004
Post-test 50 40.13 5.941
Social participation Pre-test 50 15.48 5.289 -3.288 0.001
Post-test 50 25.46 4.196
Total Pre-test 50 129.01 23.485 -3.486 0.000
Post-test 50 163.95 20.462
Pre- and post-test results of student engagement in the control group

In order to ensure the rigor of the experiment, the same data on student engagement of the control group students before and after the experiment were subjected to a paired-sample t-test, and the comparison results are shown in Table 4. As can be seen from Table 4, the p-values of behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement, affective engagement and social engagement and total student engagement measured before and after the control group are 0.184, 0.256, 0.264, 0.347, 0.526 respectively, with p-values greater than 0.05, and there is no significant difference. The control group showed improvement in behavioral participation, cognitive participation and social participation dimensions, but the improvement was lower than that of the experimental group and was negligible.

Pre-test and post-test student participation of control group
Variable Pre/post-test N Mean SD T P
Behavior participation Pre-test 50 44.85 9.847 -1.488 0.184
Post-test 50 45.15 10.849
Cognitive participation Pre-test 50 35.48 5.423 -0.898 0.256
Post-test 50 35.94 5.078
Emotional participation Pre-test 50 33.02 6.087 1.694 0.264
Post-test 50 32.84 6.268
Social participation Pre-test 50 15.94 5.322 -0.879 0.347
Post-test 50 16.78 5.065
Total Pre-test 50 129.29 23.752 -0.618 0.526
Post-test 50 130.71 24.546
Quality of teaching and learning
Post-test results of teaching quality in both groups

The teaching quality point difference questionnaire was distributed before the experiment, and the normality test was carried out by SPSS26.0 before the experiment to test the data of each index of learning effect of the experimental group and the control group, including students’ interest in learning, students’ concentration, the teaching process, the teaching results, and the classroom atmosphere. Shapiro-Wilk’s method was used for the test and the results are shown in Table 5. The data of each group before the experiment conformed to the normal distribution (P>0.05).

Normality test results of experimental and control group
Group N Mean P
Experimental group 50 163.95 0.411
Control group 50 130.71 0.394

After determining that the experimental pre-test did not have any effect on the experimental results, in order to verify the impact of the machine learning-based teaching management system on the quality of teaching. Before the processing of the data, the data were tested for normality through SPSS software, and the results yielded that the data of the five items were in line with the normal distribution, so the independent samples T-test was used for comparison, and the results are shown in Table 6.

Post-test teaching quality of experimental and control group
Variable Experimental group (N=50) Control group (N=50) T P
Mean SD Mean SD
Learning interest 28.47 6.482 18.42 4.084 7.844 0.002
Student attention 26.94 5.228 19.37 5.119 5.962 0.004
Teaching process 27.88 6.075 17.72 3.823 10.653 0.002
Teaching effect 28.95 4.946 16.88 3.744 8.385 0.001
Class atmosphere 28.45 4.379 16.57 3.526 8.296 0.001

As can be seen from Table 6, applying the machine learning-based teaching management system, compared with conventional teaching, the quality of teaching in terms of students’ interest in learning, students’ concentration, teaching process, teaching results, and classroom atmosphere indicators, the mean values of the experimental group’s achievements are 28.47, 26.94, 27.88, 28.95, and 28.45, respectively, and the mean values of the control group’s achievements are 18.42, 19.37, respectively, 17.72, 16.88, 16.57, p<0.05.

In summary, through the SPSS26.0 software on the experimental group and the control group teaching quality questionnaire data for independent samples T-test, from the results we can find that after the experiment the comparison of the two groups of data about the quality of teaching are statistically significant (P < 0.05), in which the teaching results and classroom atmosphere indicators of the two groups of data for the comparison of the P-value of 0.001, and then compare the mean value of the two groups of data It is found that the use of machine learning-based teaching management system in the course is more significant for the improvement of teaching quality compared with conventional teaching.

Pre- and post-test results of teaching quality in the experimental group

After using the machine learning-based teaching management system for teaching, we explore whether there is a statistical difference in the teaching quality of the experimental group before and after the experiment. Before the processing of the data, the data were first tested for normality through SPSS software, and the results yielded that the data about the three indicators of teaching quality were basically in line with normality, so we used the method of paired samples T-test for comparison, and the results are shown in Table 7.

Pre-test and post-test teaching quality of experimental group
Variable Pre-test (N=50) Post-test (N=50) T P
Mean SD Mean SD
Learning interest 18.16 3.845 28.47 6.482 -7.878 0.001
Student attention 18.87 4.228 26.94 5.228 -6.156 0.001
Teaching process 17.21 4.069 27.88 6.075 -8.258 0.001
Teaching effect 16.93 3.916 28.95 4.946 -9.488 0.000
Class atmosphere 16.02 3.278 28.45 4.379 -9.615 0.000

As can be seen from Table 7, after the teaching experiment, the indicators of teaching quality in the experimental group before and after the experiment, compared with each other, in terms of students’ learning interest, students’ concentration on the teaching process, the mean values before the experiment were 18.16, 18.87, 17.21, respectively, and the mean values after the experiment were 28.47, 26.94, 27.88, with a p-value of 0.001. In terms of teaching results and classroom atmosphere, the mean values before the experiment were were 16.93 and 16.02, and the post-experimental means were 28.95 and 28.45, with p-values <0.001.

In summary, through the SPSS26.0 software on the experimental group teaching quality of the data for the paired samples T-test, from the results we can find that after the teaching experiment, the experimental group teaching quality of the five indicators before and after the experiment to compare the P-value <0.01, indicating that before and after the experiment of the indicators of the data are significant differences, and then compare the mean value of the data of the two groups, indicating that after the experimental teaching, the teaching quality of the experimental group has been significantly improved.

Pre- and post-test results of teaching quality in the control group

After the regular course teaching, to explore whether there is a statistical difference between the teaching quality of the control group before and after the experiment. Before the processing of the data, the data were first tested for normality through SPSS26.0 software, and the results concluded that the data of the five indicators of teaching quality were all in line with normal distribution, so we used the paired samples T-test to compare the methods, and the results are shown in Table 8.

Pre-test and post-test teaching quality of control group
Variable Pre-test (N=50) Post-test (N=50) T P
Mean SD Mean SD
Learning interest 17.56 3.982 18.42 4.084 -0.845 0.548
Student attention 18.96 4.859 19.37 5.119 -0.736 0.623
Teaching process 17.25 3.768 17.72 3.823 -0.429 0.745
Teaching effect 16.72 3.723 16.88 3.744 -0.397 0.687
Class atmosphere 15.99 3.247 16.57 3.526 -0.683 0.568

As can be seen from Table 8, after regular teaching, the quality of teaching in the control group of each indicator before and after the experiment compared, respectively, improved by 0.86, 0.41, 0.47, 0.16, 0.58, P value > 0.05. Through the SPSS26.0 software on the control group before and after the experiment of the quality of teaching the data of the paired samples T-test, from the results we can find that after the regular teaching course, the control group There is no significant difference between the data of the indicators before and after the experiment, and then compare the mean value of the data of the two groups, which indicates that the quality of teaching has not been significantly improved after regular teaching.

Conclusion

The article builds a teaching management system based on machine learning, character recognition by LR algorithm, and completes the recognition of classroom students’ expressions and behaviors by using AlexNet and ResNet50 network. Based on the collected data, the system module is built and the system requirements and functions are designed. Teaching experiments are conducted to test the impact of this paper’s teaching management system on student engagement and teaching quality.

There was no significant difference between the pre-test results of the experimental and control groups in terms of student engagement and quality of teaching and learning, and both showed a normal distribution. After the experiment, the experimental group exceeded the control group in student engagement (behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement, affective engagement, social engagement, and overall engagement) by 10.72, 6.55, 7.29, 8.68, and 33.24 points, respectively, with a p-value of <0.05 for all dimensions. The experimental group exceeded the control group in the quality of teaching (students’ interest in learning, students’ attentiveness, the process of teaching, results of teaching, and the atmosphere of the classroom) by control group by 10.05, 7.57, 10.16, 12.07, and 11.88, with P-value <0.05 for each dimension. The P-value of the comparison of the experimental group in the dimensions of students’ engagement and quality of teaching before and after the experiment is <0.05, and the P-value of the control group before and after the experiment is >0.05. In this paper, a machine learning based instructional management system has a positive effect on increasing student engagement and improving the quality of instruction.

Język:
Angielski
Częstotliwość wydawania:
1 razy w roku
Dziedziny czasopisma:
Nauki biologiczne, Nauki biologiczne, inne, Matematyka, Matematyka stosowana, Matematyka ogólna, Fizyka, Fizyka, inne