中国安全科学学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (12): 19-24.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.12.0903

• 安全科学理论与安全系统科学 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于CIPP的安全学科课程思政评价

佟瑞鹏(), 王乐瑶, 王露露, 尘兴邦, 安宇   

  1. 中国矿业大学(北京) 应急管理与安全工程学院,北京 100083
  • 收稿日期:2022-07-10 修回日期:2022-10-20 出版日期:2022-12-28 发布日期:2023-06-28
  • 作者简介:

    佟瑞鹏 (1977—),男,黑龙江穆棱人,博士,教授,主要从事行为安全管理、职业心理健康、环境风险评估等方面的研究。E-mail:

  • 基金资助:
    教育部第二批新工科研究与实践项目(E-AQGABQ20202706); 教育部2022年第二批产学合作协同育人项目(202102506001); 教育部2022年第二批产学合作协同育人项目(202102506004); 2020年北京高等教育“本科教学改革创新项目”(202011413003); 中国矿业大学(北京)2021年研究生教育教学改革项目(YJG202210101); 中国矿业大学(北京)2021年研究生教育教学改革项目(YJ202202)

Application of curriculum politics evaluation in safety discipline based on CIPP model

TONG Ruipeng(), WANG Leyao, WANG Lulu, CHEN Xingbang, AN Yu   

  1. School of Emergency Management and Safety Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology-Beijing, Beijing 100083, China
  • Received:2022-07-10 Revised:2022-10-20 Online:2022-12-28 Published:2023-06-28

摘要:

为全面了解安全科学与工程学科(简称安全学科)课程思政建设情况,构建科学、合理的评价指标体系,首先,阐释背景评价、输入评价、过程评价、成果评价(CIPP)模型应用于课程思政评价的可行性;然后,依据政策文件及安全学科属性,基于CIPP模型,构建安全学科课程思政指标体系,包含背景基础、资源配置、实施过程、成果效益4个一级指标,学科定位等11个二级指标,落实立德树人等30个三级指标,并计算各级指标权重;最后,采用问卷调查方法,对多所开设安全学科的高校开展评价应用分析。结果表明:当前课程思政建设水平一般,总体评价得分为3.020;制度保障薄弱,制度保障单项得分2.604;资源分配失衡,存在显著性差异;从多维视角来看,一般本科院校课程思政教学能力相比“双一流”建设高校有所欠缺,必修课教师课程思政发散思维相比选修课教师存在不足,理工类课程思政系统性体系构建相比人文社科类困难。

关键词: 背景评价、输入评价、过程评价、成果评价(CIPP)模型, 评价体系, 安全学科, 课程思政, 评价应用

Abstract:

In order to comprehensively understand the construction of curriculum politics in safety discipline, an evaluation index system was constructed. Firstly, the feasibility of applying the CIPP model for the evaluation of curriculum politics was analyzed. Secondly, based on policy documents and literatures, the index system of curriculum politics of safety discipline was constructed, including 4 primary indicators, 11 secondary indicators and 30 tertiary indicators. Then, the questionnaire was applied in practice to several universities offering safety disciplines. From the overall perspective, the current level of curriculum politics construction is not good enough with an overall evaluation score of 3.020, the system guarantee is weak with a single score of 2.604. There is an imbalance in resource allocation, with significant differences. From a multi-dimensional perspective, the teaching ability of curriculum politics in general undergraduate institutions is lacking compared with that in "Double First-Class" universities. The teachers of compulsory courses have a shortage of divergent thinking in curriculum politics compared with those of elective courses. The systemic system of science and technology courses is difficult to build compared with that of humanities and social sciences.

Key words: context, input, process, product (CIPP) model, evaluation system, safety discipline, curriculum politics, evaluation application