The qualitative analysis results of teachers’ abilities are difficult to quantify, and ability problems in the teaching process are difficult to be effectively measured. In order to study methods to improve teachers’ teaching abilities, this paper builds a corresponding teacher competence evaluation model based on machine learning and digital twin technology, establishes a data collection model for teachers’ professional competence, and establishes a data fusion model. It includes data cleaning model based on XML information template, data integration model, multi-index screening mechanism and clustering strategy based on perturbation attributes. On this basis, this paper uses decision tree algorithm, random forest algorithm and neural network algorithm to construct three scheduling rule mining models aiming at teachers’ professional ability. In addition, this paper establishes a digital twin-driven multi-knowledge model scheduling optimization architecture that uses the three scheduling rules mined. The research results show that the model constructed in this paper has good performance.
MurciaJ.A.M., TorregrosaY.S. and BelandoN., Questionnaire evaluating teaching competencies in the university environment. Evaluation of teaching competencies in the university, Naer Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research4(1) (2015), 54–61.
2.
LiuS. and ChenP., Research on Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation in Practice Teaching Assessment of Computer Majors, International Journal of Modern Education & Computer Science7(11) (2015), 12–19.
3.
ZhouL., LiH. and SunK., Teaching performance evaluation by means of a hierarchical multifactorial evaluation model based on type-2 fuzzy sets, Applied Intelligence46(1) (2016), 1–11.
4.
PorozovsJ., LiepnieceL. and VoitaD., Evaluation of the Teaching Methods Used in Secondary School Biology Lessons, Nephron Clinical Practice7(1) (2015), 60–66.
5.
OliverosM.A., GarcíaA. and ValdezB., Evaluation of a Teaching Sequence Regarding Science, Technology and Society Values in Higher Education, Creative Education6(16) (2015), 1768–1775.
6.
CerónM.S. and del Sagrario Corte CruzF.M., The Evaluation of Teaching: Some Consequences for Latin America,20(67), Revista Mexicana De Investigacion Educativa (2015), 1233–1253.
7.
LiA., LiK. and GeZ., Application of Data Mining in the Colleges’ in-Class Teaching Quality Evaluation System, Journal of Computers10(3) (2015), 166–175.
8.
AngellK. and TewellE., Teaching and Un-Teaching Source Evaluation: Questioning Authority in Information Literacy Instruction, Communications in Information Literacy11(1) (2017), 95–121.
9.
BrkovicM. and ChilesP., ‘Spector –the sustainability inspector’: Participatory teaching, learning and evaluation game for architects, architecture students and pupils, Facta Universitatis14(1) (2016), 1–20.
10.
ReisenwitzT.H., Student Evaluation of Teaching: An Investigation of Nonresponse Bias in an Online Context, Journal of Marketing Education38(4) (2015), 139–144.
11.
JiangY. and WangY., Evaluation of Teaching Quality of Public Physical Education in Colleges Based on the Fuzzy Evaluation Theory, Journal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoence13(12) (2016), 9848–9851.
12.
RoyalK., A Guide for Making Valid Interpretations of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) Results, Journal of Veterinary Medical Education44(2) (2016), 1–7.
13.
EcklerU., GreisbergerA., HöhneF., et al., Blended learning versus traditional teaching-learning-setting: Evaluation of cognitive and affective learning outcomes for the inter-professional field of occupational medicine and prevention / Blended Learning versus traditionelles Lehr-Lernsetting: Evaluierung von kognitiven und affektiven Lernergebnissen für das interprofessionelle Arbeitsfeld Arbeitsmedizin und Prävention, Nephron Clinical Practice4(2) (2017), 109–121.
14.
GarofaloF., Mota-MoyaP., MundayA., et al., Total Extraperitoneal Hernia Repair: Residency Teaching Program and Outcome Evaluation, World Journal of Surgery41(1) (2017), 1–6.
15.
RajkomarA., DeanJ. and KohaneI., Machine learning in medicine, New England Journal of Medicine380(14) (2019), 1347–1358.
16.
XinY., KongL., LiuZ., et al., Machine learning and deep learning methods for cybersecurity, IEEE Access6 (2018), 35365–35381.
17.
MeredigB., AgrawalA., KirklinS., et al., Combinatorial screening for new materials in unconstrained composition space with machine learning, Physical Review B89(9) (2014), 094104.
18.
WardL., AgrawalA., ChoudharyA., et al., A general-purpose machine learning framework for predicting properties of inorganic materials, npj Computational Materials2(1) (2016), 1–7.
19.
FengP., WangB., LiL.D., et al., Incorporating machine learning with biophysical model can improve the evaluation of climate extremes impacts on wheat yield in south-eastern Australia, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology275(17) (2019), 100–113.
20.
KourouK., ExarchosT.P., ExarchosK.P., et al., Machine learning applications in cancer prognosis and prediction, Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal13(2) (2015), 8–17.
21.
AmershiS., CakmakM., KnoxW.B., et al., Power to the people: The role of humans in interactive machine learning, Ai Magazine35(4) (2014), 105–120.
22.
KyurkchievN., Investigations on a Hyper-logistic Model. Some Applications, Dynamic Systems and Applications28 (2019), 351–369.
23.
MaY. and LiW., Based on BP nerve Research on the Stability Criterion of Fractional Differential Equations of Network Algorithm, Dynamic Systems and Applications29(3) (2020), 477–491.
24.
Rodriguez-GalianoV., Sanchez-CastilloM., Chica-OlmoM., et al., Machine learning predictive models for mineral prospectivity: An evaluation of neural networks, random forest, regression trees and support vector machines, Ore Geology Reviews71 (2015), 804–818.
25.
ColeyC.W., BarzilayR., JaakkolaT.S., et al., Prediction of organic reaction outcomes using machine learning, ACS central science3(5) (2017), 434–443.
26.
PaulA., DanielA., AhmadA. and RhoS., Cooperative cognitive intelligence for internet of vehicles, IEEE Systems Journal11(3) (2017), 1249–1258.
27.
PaulA., AhmadA., RathoreM.M. and JabbarS., Smartbuddy: defining human behaviors using big data analytics in social internet of things, IEEE Wireless Communications23(5) (2016), 68–74.
28.
PaulA., JiangY.C., WangJ.F. and YangJ.F., Parallel reconfigurable computing-based mapping algorithm for motion estimation in advanced video coding, ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS)11(S2) (2012), 1–18.
29.
RathoreM.M., PaulA., HongW.H., SeoH.C., AwanI. and SaeedS., Exploiting IoT and big data analytics: Defining smart digital city using real-time urban data, Sustainable Cities and Society40 (2018), 600–610.
30.
PaulA., Internet of Things: A primer, R Jeyaraj Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies1(1) (2019), 37–47.
