Nano-integrating green and low-carbon concepts into ideological and political education in higher education institutions through K-means clustering

Abstract

Universities and colleges play a pivotal role in the pursuit of a future that is sustainable through their pedagogical efforts and the execution of state-of-the-art research endeavors aimed at mitigating the effects of climate change. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) serve as crucial catalysts in advancing sustainable development. HEIs are increasingly embracing precise measures to reduce their carbon footprint (CF) while also educating students on global sustainability. These nano-methods provide a quantitative framework for assessing a campus's sustainability efforts in line with Green Campus (GC) initiatives to lower carbon emissions align with GC goals. This study employs K-means clustering to analyze the integration of green and low-carbon principles in higher education political and ideological studies. Its goal is to identify patterns, assess teaching effectiveness, and improve sustainability education, aligning with Green Campus initiatives to enhance institutional contributions to sustainable growth through informed pedagogical strategies. Input data includes curriculum content, teaching methods, student engagement, and institutional goals related to sustainability. Seeking to improve sustainability education align with Green Campus initiatives, higher education can strategically enhance their contributions to long-term sustainability and growth through effective pedagogical approaches. Cluster 3 has the lowest WCSS value of 1200, indicating tighter cohesion and less variability within this cluster compared to Cluster 1 (1500) and Cluster 2 (1800). Cluster 3 stands out with the highest silhouette score of 0.7, suggesting well-defined and distinct clusters, while Cluster 2 has the lowest score of 0.4, indicating some overlap or ambiguity in data points. Cluster 1 has the lowest Davies-Bouldin Index of 0.4, implying better separation between clusters compared to Cluster 2 (0.6) and Cluster 3 (0.5). Cluster 3 is well-defined and cohesive, showing strong integration of green practices. Cluster 1 displays good separation and cohesion, while Cluster 2 requires refinement due to potential overlap in sustainability integration.