Because the teaching methods of Chinese teaching in higher vocational colleges are improper and the problems in the teaching process cannot be found in time, the teaching effect is not good and there are many difficulties in the teaching process of teachers. According to actual needs, based on complex evolution and improved neural network algorithms, this paper builds a Chinese online teaching system in high vocational colleges. After communication with users and social research, the model function module is determined, and the system performance is improved through the mapping optimization model to eliminate data transmission problems in the system operation, and the realization process of the system function module is shown in the form of a diagram. In addition, this paper designs a control experiment to verify the performance of the model and uses the traditional algorithm model as a control to start the test teaching and uses statistical methods to compare the teaching effects. The research results show that the teaching system constructed in this paper has certain advantages over the traditional model.
PorozovsJ., LiepnieceL. and VoitaD., Evaluation of the Teaching Methods Used in Secondary School Biology Lessons, Nephron Clinical Practice7(1) (2015), 60–66.
2.
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.
3.
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.
4.
LiA., LiK. and GeZ., Application of Data Mining in the Colleges’ in-Class Teaching Quality Evaluation System, Journal of Computers10(3) (2015), 166–175.
5.
AngellK. and TewellE., Teaching and Un-Teaching Source Evaluation: Questioning Authority in Information Literacy Instruction, Communications in Information Literacy11(1) (2017), 95–121.
6.
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.
7.
ReisenwitzT.H., Student Evaluation of Teaching: An Investigation of Nonresponse Bias in an Online Context, Journal of Marketing Education38(4) (2015), 139–144.
8.
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.
9.
RoyalK., A Guide for Making Valid Interpretations of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) Results, Journal of Veterinary Medical Education44(2) (2016), 1–7.
10.
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.
11.
GarofaloF., Mota-MoyaP., MundayA., et al., Total Extraperitoneal Hernia Repair: Residency Teaching Program and Outcome Evaluation, World Journal of Surgery41(1) (2017), 1–6.
12.
GongG. and LiuS., Consideration of Evaluation of Teaching at Colleges, Open Journal of Social Sciences04(7) (2016), 82–84.
13.
ZhaoH., College Physics Teaching Model Design and Evaluation Research of Students’ Seriousness, Open Cybernetics & Systemics Journal9(1) (2015), 2017–2020.
14.
TranN.D., Reconceptualisation of approaches to teaching evaluation in higher education, Issues in Educational Research25(1) (2015), 50–61.
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(1) (2018), 35365–35381.
17.
MeredigB., AgrawalA., KirklinS., et al., Combinatorial screening for new materials in unconstrained composition space with machine learning, Physical B. Review89(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(23) (2019), 100–113.
20.
KourouK., ExarchosT.P., ExarchosK.P., et al., Machine learning applications in cancer prognosis and prediction, Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal13(1) (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.
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(2) (2015), 804–818.
23.
ColeyC.W., BarzilayR., JaakkolaT.S., et al., Prediction of organic reaction outcomes using machine learning, ACS Central Science3(5) (2017), 434–443.
24.
ChowdhuryA., KautzE., YenerB., et al., Image driven machine learning methods for microstructure recognition, Computational Materials Science123(12) (2016), 176–187.
25.
BaoH., Existence and Stability of Anti Periodic Solution For Fcnns with Variable Coefficients In the Leakage Terms, Dynamic Systems and Applications28 (2019), 275–288.
26.
LiuX. and LiuX., Research on the Multi-Level Fuzzy Comprehensive Valuation of Enterprise M & A Value under the Background of Artificial Intelligence, Dynamic Systems and Applications29(3) (2020), 555–568.
27.
BasithS., ManavalanB., ShinT.H., et al., SDM6A: A web-based integrative machine-learning framework for predicting 6mA sites in the rice genome, Molecular Therapy-Nucleic Acids18(7) (2019), 131–141.
28.
PaulA., DanielA., AhmadA. and RhoS., Cooperative cognitive intelligence for internet of vehicles, IEEE Systems Journal11(3) (2017), 1249–1258.
29.
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.
30.
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.
31.
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.
32.
PaulA., Internet of Things: A primer, R Jeyaraj Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies1(1) (2019), 37–47.
