A Study on Optimizing Student Stratification Management in English Teaching Based on K-mean Clustering Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The continuous development of digital informatization has opened the era of intelligent education in the field of education.Higher education has accumulated a huge amount of data, but it is not fully utilized, and in-depth mining and analysis of these data can reveal the students' learning and life status and provide powerful support for teaching management.Therefore, the research of using clustering algorithm to build a hierarchical management model for English teaching is very necessary.Clustering algorithm provides an effective way for the analysis of students' learning behavior, and for the research needs of English teaching, this paper proposes a multi-factor improved K-means clustering algorithm and compares and verifies its clustering effect.For the problem of stratified division of student groups, firstly, the clustering index system of students' book borrowing behavior and English course learning behavior constructed is used.Then, the improved K-Means clustering algorithm is used to cluster and mine the data of each student's behavior to discover the student groups under different behaviors, so as to realize the hierarchical clustering of students in hierarchical management.Finally, for English teaching, a student stratification management model is established from three aspects: student stratification, teaching goal stratification and teaching process stratification, which provides important decision support for student stratification determination in English teaching and provides a more rationalized management model for student management workers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".