The Teaching Design Methods Under Educational Psychology Based on Deep Learning and Artificial Intelligence.

Zewen Wang, Lin Cai, Yahan Chen, Hongming Li, Hanze Jia
Author Information
  1. Zewen Wang: Pan Tianshou College of Architecture, Art and Design, Ningbo University, Ningbo, China.
  2. Lin Cai: School of Humanities, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
  3. Yahan Chen: Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.
  4. Hongming Li: College of Elementary Education, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China.
  5. Hanze Jia: The College of Foreign Languages, Inner Mongolia Normal University, Huhhot, China.

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the practical application value of the teaching method under the guidance of educational psychology and artificial intelligence (AI) design, taking the deep learning theory as the basis of teaching design. The research objects of this study involve all the teachers, students, and students' parents of Ningbo Middle School. The questionnaires are developed to survey the changes in the performance of students before and after the implementation of the teaching design and the satisfaction of all teachers, students, and parents to different teaching methods by comparing the two results and the satisfaction ratings. All objects in this study volunteer to participate in the questionnaire survey. The results suggest the following: (1) the effective return rates of the questionnaires to teachers, students, and parents are 97, 99, and 95%, respectively, before implementation; whereas those after implementation are 98, 99, and 99%, respectively. Comparison of the two return results suggests that there was no significant difference statistically ( > 0.05). (2) Proportion of scoring results before and after implementation is given as follows: the proportions of levels A, B, C, and D are 35, 40, 15, and 10% before implementation, respectively; while those after implementation are 47, 36, 12, and 5%, respectively. After the implementation, the proportion of level A is obviously higher than that before the implementation, and the proportions of other levels decreased in contrast to those before the implementation, showing statistically obvious differences ( < 0.05). (3) The change in the performance of each subject after 1 year implementation is significantly higher than that before the implementation, and the change in the average performance of each subject shows an upward trend. In summary, (1) the comparison on the effective return rate of the satisfaction survey questionnaire proves the feasibility of its scoring results. (2) The comparison of the survey scoring results shows that people are more satisfied with the new educational design teaching method. (3) The comparison of the change in the performance of each subject before and after the implementation indirectly reflects the drawbacks of partial subject education, indicating that the school should pay the same equal attention to every subject. (4) Due to various objective and subjective factors, the results of this study may be different from the actual situation slightly, and its accuracy has to be further explored in the future.

Keywords

References

  1. Sensors (Basel). 2021 Jan 01;21(1): [PMID: 33401482]
  2. JMIR Med Educ. 2020 Jun 30;6(1):e19285 [PMID: 32602844]
  3. Community Health Equity Res Policy. 2023 Jul;43(4):347-356 [PMID: 34128427]
  4. Curr Res Behav Sci. 2021 Nov;2:100011 [PMID: 38620741]
  5. Arch Public Health. 2021 May 5;79(1):69 [PMID: 33952339]
  6. Front Psychol. 2019 Feb 21;10:360 [PMID: 30846958]
  7. J Educ Health Promot. 2020 Aug 31;9:205 [PMID: 33062738]
  8. Heliyon. 2021 Mar 10;7(3):e06414 [PMID: 33748482]
  9. J Educ Health Promot. 2022 Feb 26;11:50 [PMID: 35372596]
  10. Global Health. 2021 Jan 5;17(1):4 [PMID: 33402169]
  11. Front Psychol. 2018 Mar 14;9:343 [PMID: 29593627]
  12. Front Psychol. 2020 Oct 19;11:580820 [PMID: 33192896]
  13. Adv Physiol Educ. 2016 Jun;40(2):147-56 [PMID: 27068989]
  14. Front Psychol. 2018 Oct 25;9:2025 [PMID: 30410461]
  15. Front Psychol. 2019 May 31;10:1270 [PMID: 31214081]
  16. BMC Med. 2021 Jan 8;19(1):4 [PMID: 33413343]
  17. Cureus. 2020 Jun 16;12(6):e8656 [PMID: 32685321]
  18. Front Psychol. 2019 Oct 09;10:2228 [PMID: 31649581]
  19. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021 May 12;14:1917-1932 [PMID: 34012304]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0implementationresultsteachingdesignsurveysubjectstudystudentsperformancesatisfactionreturnrespectivelyeducationalteachersparentsquestionnaire1effectivescoringchangecomparisonmethodpsychologyartificialintelligencedeeplearningobjectsquestionnairesdifferenttwo99statistically0052proportionslevelshigher3showsrateaimsevaluatepracticalapplicationvalueguidanceAItakingtheorybasisresearchinvolvestudents'NingboMiddleSchooldevelopedchangesmethodscomparingratingsvolunteerparticipatesuggestfollowing:rates9795%whereas9899%Comparisonsuggestssignificantdifference>Proportiongivenfollows:BCD35401510%4736125%proportionlevelobviouslydecreasedcontrastshowingobviousdifferences<yearsignificantlyaverageupwardtrendsummaryprovesfeasibilitypeoplesatisfiednewindirectlyreflectsdrawbackspartialeducationindicatingschoolpayequalattentionevery4DuevariousobjectivesubjectivefactorsmayactualsituationslightlyaccuracyexploredfutureTeachingDesignMethodsEducationalPsychologyBasedDeepLearningArtificialIntelligence

Similar Articles

Cited By