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

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.12.0903

Abstract

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

TONG Ruipeng, WANG Leyao, WANG Lulu, CHEN Xingbang, AN Yu. Application of curriculum politics evaluation in safety discipline based on CIPP model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(12): 19-24.

Figures/Tables 5

Fig.1

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Fig.2

References 15

[1]	赵继伟. “课程思政”:涵义、理念、问题与对策[J]. 湖北经济学院学报, 2019, 17(2):114-119.
[2]	范维澄, 苗鸿雁, 袁亮, 等. 我国安全科学与工程学科“十四五”发展战略研究[J]. 中国科学基金, 2021, 35(6):864-870.
	FAN Weicheng, MIAO Hongyan, YUAN Liang, et al. Development strategy of safety discipline in China during the 14^thFive-Year Plan Period[J]. Bulletin of National Natural Science Foundation of China, 2021, 35(6):864-870.
[3]	许耀元. 高校课程思政教学评价体系构建[J]. 智库时代, 2020(3):209-211.
[4]	柳建安, 闵淑辉, 廖凯. 专业课课程思政教学评价体系构建的研究[J]. 黑龙江教育:高教研究与评估, 2022(1):26-27.
[5]	马孟伟. 护理本科专业课课程思政教学评价指标体系的构建[J]. 护理学杂志, 2022, 37(1):6-10.
	MA Mengwei. Construction of an indicator set to measure teaching quality of "ideological and political theory education" in specialty courses in undergraduate nursing education[J]. Journal of Nursing Science, 2022, 37(1):6-10.
[6]	刘兴智, 刘军. 工商管理研究生课程思政教学评价体系建设研究[J]. 教育信息化论坛, 2022(1):120-122.
[7]	STUFFLEBEAMD L, MADAUS G F, KELLAGHAN T. Evaluation models-viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation[M]. Berlin: Springer Netherlands, 2000:106.
[8]	陆道坤. 课程思政推行中若干核心问题及解决思路:基于专业课程思政的探讨[J]. 思想理论教育, 2018(3):64-69.
[9]	于腾云. “学生评价”与“评价学生”:课程思政改革的效果评价和优化对策研究[J]. 教育现代化, 2020, 7(25):42-45.
	YU Tengyun. "Student evaluation" and "evaluate students": the effect evaluation and optimization countermeasures of the ideological and political reform of the curriculum[J]. Education Modernization, 2020, 7(25):42-45.
[10]	雷晶晶. 基于CIPP的行业院校研究生课程思政评价指标体系研究[J]. 创新创业理论研究与实践, 2020, 3(23):147-149.
	LEI Jingjing. Research on the index system of ideological and political evaluation of graduate courses in industry colleges based on CIPP[J]. The Theory and Practice of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2020, 3(23):147-149.
[11]	许祥云, 王佳佳. 高校课程思政综合评价指标体系构建:基于CIPP评价模式的理论框架[J]. 高校教育管理, 2022, 16(1):47-60.
	XU Xiangyun, WANG Jiajia. The construction of the comprehensive evaluation index system for curriculum ideological and political education in colleges and universities: based on the theoretical framework of the CIPP evaluation model[J]. Journal of Higher Education Management, 2022, 16(1):47-60.
[12]	佟瑞鹏, 王露露, 尘兴邦, 等. 高校安全学科“两线一格”课程思政育人模式探析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(10):1-7.
	TONG Ruipeng, WANG Lulu, CHEN Xingbang, et al. Exploring "two lines and one frame" education mode for curriculum politics of safety discipline in colleges and universities[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(10):1-7.
[13]	佟瑞鹏, 马晓飞, 栗婧, 等. 新工科理念下安全工程专业教学模式与效果评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(6):140-145. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.06.023
	TONG Ruipeng, MA Xiaofei, LI Jing, et al. Teaching model and effect evaluation of safety engineering discipline under idea of new engineering[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(6):140-145. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.06.023
[14]	易玉枚, 董子文, 易灿南, 等. 专业认证背景下安全工程专业课程体系优化探讨[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2020, 27(3):153-156.
	YI Yumei, DONG Ziwen, YI Cannan, et al. Optimization of course system of safety engineering specialty under the background of professional certification[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2020, 27(3):153-156.
[15]	王亮, 孙一伟, 王凯. 安全工程人才多维能力培养体系构建与实践[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(5):52-57. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.05.008
	WANG Liang, SUN Yiwei, WANG Kai. Construction and practice of multi-dimensional ability training system for safety engineering talents[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(5):52-57. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.05.008

一级指标	二级指标	三级指标
背景基础 (20%)	学科定位(49%)	落实立德树人(35%);坚持“四个自信”(33%);融合思政教育(32%)
背景基础 (20%)	培养目标(51%)	掌握专业知识和技能(51%);提升思想品德素质(49%)
资源配置 (23%)	制度保障(32%)	建立监督制度(49%);建立考核激励制度(51%)
	教学资源(35%)	建立并完善思政元素库(24%);拓展教学资源(25%);加强团队建设(25%); 提升教师意识和能力(26%)
	经费支持(33%)	设立专项研究资金(49%);提供教学经费(51%)
过程实施 (27%)	教学设计(33%)	团队共同参与(49%);思政元素、专业知识有机融合(51%)
	教学过程(34%)	有效监控课堂(31%);表扬激励学生(34%);保持正常教学(35%)
	学习过程(33%)	课前预习(30%);课堂积极(35%);课后保持(35%)
成果效益 (30%)	教学效果(32%)	课堂满意度(48%);学生获得感(52%)
	课程影响(33%)	同行认可(33%)同行借鉴(33%)辐射推广(34%)
	育人效果(35%)	思想道德(26%)知识能力(25%)技术能力(23%);社会能力(26%)

背景基础:3.070		资源配置:2.929			过程实施:3.045			成果效益:3.044
学科定位	培养目标	制度保障	教学资源	经费支持	教学设计	教学过程	学习过程	教学效果	课程影响	育人效果
3.116	3.026	2.604	3.086	3.077	3.124	2.977	3.035	3.124	2.991	3.023

选项	高校类型		课程性质			课程类别
选项	双一流建设高校	一般本科院校	必修课	选修课	必修课& 选修课	理工类	人文社科类	理工类&人文社科类
背景基础	3.127	2.958	3.029	3.288	3.015	3.025	3.504	3.233
资源配置	2.973	2.843	2.893	3.12	2.882	2.905	2.994	3.219
过程实施	3.151	2.838	2.946	3.261	3.087	2.998	3.477	3.2447
成果效益	3.1	2.936	2.981	3.2	3.062	3.002	3.336	3.334
总分	3.09	2.892	2.961	3.216	3.018	2.983	3.329	3.262