Abstract

China is pushing universities to implement reforms in order to achieve the sustainable development goals, but with the development level of teachers becoming the key restricting factor. In this sense, teacher evaluation and improvement act as positive factors for China to achieve the 2030 sustainable development goals. Previous studies on teacher evaluation have usually assumed that the relationship between the evaluation criteria is independent, with the weights of each standard derived from this assumption. However, this assumption is often not in line with the actual situation. Decisions based on these studies are likely to waste resources and may negatively impact the efficiency and effectiveness of teachers’ sustainable development. This study developed an integrated model for the evaluation and improvement of teachers based on the official teacher evaluation criteria of China’s International Scholarly Exchange Curriculum (ISEC) programme and a multiple criteria decision-making methodology. First, a decision-making trial and a laboratory-based analytical network process were used to establish an influential network-relation diagram (INRD) and influential weights under ISEC standards. Next, an important performance analysis was used to integrate the weight and performance of each standard to produce a worst-performance criterion set for each university teacher. Finally, the worst performance set used an INRD to derive an improvement strategy with a cause–effect relationship for each teacher. This study chose a Chinese university that has implemented teaching reform for our case study. The results show that our developed model can assist decision-makers to improve their current evaluations of teachers and to provide a cause–effect improvement strategy for education reform committees and higher education institutions.

Highlights

  • A subsidiary department of the Chinese Ministry of Education (MOE) developed the International Scholarly Exchange Curriculum (ISEC) program based on the directive of “globalizing education to deepen reforms in higher education”

  • To fill the research gap, this study developed a novel multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) model that uses the DEMATEL-based analytical network process (DANP) method to construct the influential network-relation diagram (INRD) and influential weights for criteria and the importance-performance analysis (IPA) method to search the worst performances of criteria for each teacher

  • This study discovered the following: (1) actual weights and DANP weights stem from the cumulative practical teaching experience of experts, and the results show that the rankings in both are close

Read more

Summary

Introduction

If teacher evaluations can identify the core reasons why and where they perform poorly before resources are invested in specific areas, the information can be used to effectively improve the resource investment and use rate in Chinese universities To solve this problem, a subsidiary department of the Chinese MOE developed the International Scholarly Exchange Curriculum (ISEC) program based on the directive of “globalizing education to deepen reforms in higher education”. The model focuses on analyzing the factors influencing poor teacher performance according to certain criteria with the intention of using fewer but more focused resources to produce effective improvements This method provides a new mechanism for the sustainable development of university teachers based on evaluations and supplements the inadequacies of the existing studies to a certain degree.

Review of University Teacher Evaluation Models
Selection of Appropriate Criteria in the Evaluation Model
Building Decision-Making Models Using MCDM Methodology
Research Gaps in Their Decision-Making Models
Limitations or Current Defects
Our Proposed Hybrid DANP-IPA Model
Importance–Performance Analysis Method
Case Background Problem Description
INRD and Influential Weight Using the DANP Method
C31 C32 ri di
University Teacher Evaluation Using the IPA Method
C11 C12 C21 C22 C23 C24 C31 C32
Discussion
Proposal for Improvement Suggestions Based on the INRD
Comparison of Weights
Conclusions and Remarks
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.