College English cross-cultural teaching has changed from offline to online teaching. Under the impetus of MOOC teaching mode, college English cross-cultural teaching online teaching has exposed problems such as insufficient intelligence and poor online teaching effects. In order to improve the efficiency of college English cross-cultural teaching, based on cloud computing technology and artificial intelligence technology, this article improves and analyzes traditional MOOC, improves traditional algorithms according to the actual needs of MOOC teaching, and proposes a new improved model. Moreover, this article sets up functional modules through requirements analysis. In addition, according to actual teaching, this paper designs control experiments to verify and analyze the model performance from experimental teaching and the effect of attracting students’ online learning. The research results show that the model proposed in this paper has good performance and can effectively improve the efficiency of English cross-cultural teaching.
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.
2.
PorozovsJ., LiepnieceL. and VoitaD., Evaluation of the Teaching Methods Used in Secondary School Biology Lessons, Nephron Clinical Practice7(1) (2015), 60–66.
3.
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.
4.
CerónM.S. and del Sagrario Corte CruzF.M., The Evaluation of Teaching: Some Consequences for Latin America, Revista Mexicana De Investigacion Educativa20(67) (2015), 1233–1253.
5.
LiA., LiK. and GeZ., Application of Data Mining in the Colleges’ in-Class Teaching Quality Evaluation System, Journal of Computers10(3) (2015), 166–175.
6.
AngellK. and TewellE., Teaching and Un-Teaching Source Evaluation: Questioning Authority in Information Literacy Instruction, Communications in Information Literacy11(1) (2017), 95–121.
7.
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.
8.
ReisenwitzT.H., Student Evaluation of Teaching: An Investigation of Nonresponse Bias in an Online Context, Journal of Marketing Education38(4) (2015), 139–144.
9.
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.
10.
RoyalK., A Guide for Making Valid Interpretations of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) Results, Journal of Veterinary Medical Education44(2) (2016), 1–7.
11.
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.
12.
GarofaloF., Mota-MoyaP., MundayA., et al., Total Extraperitoneal Hernia Repair: Residency Teaching Program and Outcome Evaluation, World Journal of Surgery41(1) (2017), 1–6.
13.
GongG. and LiuS., Consideration of Evaluation of Teaching at Colleges, Open Journal of Social Sciences04(7) (2016), 82–84.
14.
ZhaoH., College Physics Teaching Model Design and Evaluation Research of Students’ Seriousness, Open Cybernetics & Systemics Journal9(1) (2015), 2017–2020.
15.
TranN.D., Reconceptualisation of approaches to teaching evaluation in higher education, Issues in Educational Research25(1) (2015), 50–61.
16.
DelgatyLaura., Twelve tips for academic role and institutional change in distance learning, Medical Teacher37(1) (2015), 41–46.
17.
StefanovicM., TadicD., NesticS., et al., An Assessment of Distance Learning Laboratory Objectives for Control Engineering Education, Computer Applications in Engineering Education23(2) (2015), 191–202.
18.
BabuP.R., Developing Open and Distance Learning Programme in Labour and Development: Results of a Needs Assessment Study, Journal of Natural History196(29) (2015), 265–291.
19.
WillisE.A., Szabo-ReedA.N., PtomeyL.T., et al., Distance learning strategies for weight management utilizing social media: A comparison of phone conference call versus social media platform. Rationale and design for a randomized study, Contemporary Clinical Trials47 (2016), 282–288.
20.
YeH.J., ZhanD.C. and JiangY., Fast generalization rates for distance metric learning: Improved theoretical analysis for smooth strongly convex distance metric learning, Machine Learning108(2) (2019), 267–295.
21.
LuoY., WenY., LiuT., et al., Transferring Knowledge Fragments for Learning Distance Metric from a Heterogeneous Domain, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence41(4) (2019), 1013–1026.
22.
HsuC.C., KungC.H., JhengJ.J., et al., Unsupervised distance learning for extended self-organizing map and visualization of mixed-type data, Intelligent Data Analysis23(4) (2019), 799–823.
23.
PinxtenM., SoomC.V., PeetersC.M., et al., At-risk at the gate: prediction of study success of first-year science and engineering students in an open-admission university in Flanders—any incremental validity of study strategies?European Journal of Psychology of Education34 (2019), 45–66.
24.
BrehmM., ImbermanS.A. and LovenheimM.F., Achievement effects of individual performance incentives in a teacher merit pay tournament, Labour Economics44 (2017), 133–150.
25.
AbbasS., ArifiN.A., BenchohraM. and GraefJ.R., Random Coupled Systems of Implicit Caputo-hadamard Fractional Differential Equations with Multi-point Boundary Conditions in Generalized Banach Spaces, Dynamic Systems and Applications28 (2019), 329–350.
26.
Yu-qiH., Jia-jiaY. and QianG., The industrial transfer from the western region to the eastern region based on the Yangtze River Economic Belt —a case study of Chongqing, Dynamic Systems and Applications29(3) (2020), 492–506.
27.
McgillR.J. and SpurginA.R., Assessing The Incremental Value Of Kabc-ii Luria Model Scores In Predicting Achievement: What Do They Tell Us Beyond The Mpi?Psychology in the Schools53(7) (2016), 677–689.
28.
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.
29.
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.
30.
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.
31.
PaulA., Internet of Things: A primer, R Jeyaraj Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies1(1) (2019), 37–47.
32.
PaulA., DanielA., AhmadA. and RhoS., Cooperative cognitive intelligence for internet of vehicles, IEEE Systems Journal11(3) (2017), 1249–1258.
