|
|
|
| Computational thinking to evaluating the rationality of curriculum development in the framework of “Washington Accord” graduation requirements |
| DUAN Bin1,2, FU Zikang2 |
1. Xiangtan University Professional Accreditation Guidance Centre, Xiangtan, Hu'nan 411100;
2. College of Automation and Electronic Information, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan, Hu'nan 411105 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The framework of graduation requirements of the Washington Accord stipulates the knowledge, qualities and abilities that students should master. Each major designs the curriculum system in the reverse direction based on the graduation requirements and evaluates the rationality of the curriculum system settings, which has too many subjective factors and not enough objectivity in actual operation. In this paper, computational thinking and educational psychology are used to explore the internal rules through big data analysis, translate stability of ability characteristics corresponding to graduation requirements into consistency measure of distribution of students' performance in each supporting course, and construct an algorithm to evaluate the support relationship between professional curriculum system and graduation requirements. Students' comprehensive performance is taken as main data source to analyze the shortcomings of the support relationship at graduation requirements level or course level based on calculation results. Results of evaluation cases of engineering majors curriculum system in three universities show that this method can effectively detect the problem of improper support of courses to graduation requirements in the professional curriculum system.
|
|
Received: 30 June 2022
|
|
|
|
| Cite this article: |
|
DUAN Bin,FU Zikang. Computational thinking to evaluating the rationality of curriculum development in the framework of “Washington Accord” graduation requirements[J]. Electrical Engineering, 2022, 23(12): 64-69.
|
|
|
|
| URL: |
|
http://dqjs.cesmedia.cn/EN/Y2022/V23/I12/64
|
[1] 中国工程教育专业认证协会. 工程教育认证自评报告指导书(2022版)[EB/OL]. https://zljk.synu.edu.cn/2022/0427/c5481a82009/page.htm.
[2] 黄海涛. 美国高校“学生学习成果评估”的特点与启示[J]. 教育研究, 2013, 34(4): 138-146.
[3] 李志义. 《华盛顿协议》毕业要求框架变化及其启示[J]. 高等工程教育研究, 2022(3): 6-14.
[4] 白艳红. 工程教育专业认证背景下课程目标的形成性评价研究与实践[J]. 中国高教研究, 2019(12): 60-64.
[5] 林健. 新工科专业课程体系改革和课程建设[J]. 高等工程教育研究, 2020(1): 1-13, 24.
[6] 鲜龙. 基于工程教育专业认证的电气工程专业课程体系改革与实践[J]. 大学教育, 2020, 9(6): 17-19.
[7] 李新成. 现代认知心理学关于理解过程的研究[J]. 教育理论与实践, 1997, 17(2): 46-50.
[8] 叶浩生. 具身认知:认知心理学的新取向[J]. 心理科学进展, 2010, 18(5): 705-710.
[9] 刘岩. 学生自我效能、心理控制源与应激的关系[J].中国心理卫生杂志, 2003, 17(1): 36-38, 41.
[10] GRANVIK S M, BROLIN L S, ALMQUIST Y B.Effective schools, school segregation, and the link with school achievement[J]. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2018, 29(3): 464-484.
[11] 黄淑伟, 王学颖. 因子分析法在大学生综合素质评价中的应用[J]. 沈阳师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 33(4): 520-523.
[12] 姜明明, 马丹. 因子分析和聚类分析方法在大学生综合素质评价中的应用[J]. 齐齐哈尔大学学报(自然科学版), 2013, 29(2): 77-80, 83. |
|
|
|
2022, Vol. 23 
