skip to main content
research-article

An Empirical Study on IPO Model Construction of Undergraduate Education Quality Evaluation in China from the Statistical Pattern Recognition Approach In NLP

Authors Info & Claims
Published:12 November 2022Publication History
Skip Editorial Notes Section

Editorial Notes

EXPRESSION OF CONCERN: ACM is issuing a formal Expression of Concern for all papers published in the TALLIP Special Issue on Self-Learning Systems and Pattern Recognition and Exploitation for Multimedia Asian Information Processing while a thorough investigation takes place with regards to the integrity of the peer review process. ACM strongly suggests that papers in this special issue not be cited in the literature until ACM's investigation has concluded and final decisions have been made regarding the integrity of the peer review process.

Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Based on the analysis of 1,497 samples from the survey of national undergraduate educational administrators, the IPO model of undergraduate education quality evaluation from the perspective of managers can be effectively verified. The quality of higher education needs the accountability of higher education and evaluation of student learning outcomes. The empirical studies show the effects on the various dimensions of quality provisions which were not the same. The main findings are that the input of undergraduate education and teaching can not only directly and positively predict the output of undergraduate education and teaching, but also can positively predict the output of undergraduate education and teaching through the partial mediating effect of the process of undergraduate education and teaching. The research suggests that under the given material conditions, it is essential to enhance the “soft input” of undergraduate education and teaching, to strengthen the process construction of undergraduate education and teaching, to enhance the process quality control in the implementation of humanistic care, to pay attention to the development effect of teachers and students and the development effect of school-running characteristics, and to promote the connotative development of colleges and universities. The study provides a practical framework, model, and guidelines that can be used for undergraduate education institutions to evaluate and enhance the performance to effectively work in society. The quality evaluation of undergraduate education needs to focus from the quality of students' learning outcomes to the comprehensive consideration of “input-process-outcome”.

REFERENCES

  1. Bushnell D. S.. 1990. Input, process, output: A model for evaluating training. Training and Development Journal 3 (1990), 4143.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Department for Business Innovation & Skills, UK. Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice. http://www.gov.uk, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Fan Y. F. and Song N. Q.. 2019. Educational evaluation models in the big data era and their paradigm construction. Social Sciences in China 12 (2019), 139155.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Fernández M. J., Fernández J. G., Aguilar S. R., Selvi B. S., and Crespo R. G.. 2013. Control of attendance applied in higher education through mobile NFC technologies. Expert Systems with Applications 40, 11 (2013), 44784489. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Galais C., Fernández-Martinez J. L., Font J., et al. 2020. Testing the input-process-output model of public participation. European Journal of Political Research 60, 4 (2020), 807828. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Gong Y. Z.. 2004. The reflection on the teaching quality assurance system of university from the perspective of management science. Journal of Higher Education 5 (2004), 8185.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Huang C. T., Lin W. T., Wang S. T., et al. 2009. Planning of educational training course by data mining: Using China Motor Corporation as an example. Expert Systems with Applications 7 (2009), 199209.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ilgen D. R., Hollenbeck J. R., Johnson M., et al. 2005. Teams in organizations: From Input-Process-Output models to IMOI models. Annual Reviews Psychology 56 (2005), 517543. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Johnston R. J.. 1994. Quality assessment of teaching: Inputs, processes and outputs. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 2 (1994), 184193. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Li X. Y.. 2020. Laws of internal and external relations in education: Emergence, dialogues, origin and development. Journal of Xiamen University (Arts and Social Sciences) 5 (2020), 4853.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu O. L.. 2011. Outcomes assessment in higher education: Challenges and future research in the context of voluntary system of accountability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 3 (2011), 29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Namoun A. and Alshanqiti A.. 2021. Predicting student performance using data mining and learning analytics techniques: A systematic literature review. Applied Sciences 11, 1 (2021), 237. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Niet Y. V., Diaz V. G., and Montenegro C. E.. 2016. Academic decision-making model for higher education institutions using learning analytics. 2016 4th International Symposium on Computational and Business Intelligence (ISCBI). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Pan M. Y.. 1990. Analysis of laws of external relations in education. Journal of Xiamen University (Arts and Social Sciences) 2 (1990), 17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Saura J. R.. 2021. Using data sciences in digital marketing: Framework, methods, and performance metrics. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 6, 2 (2021), 92102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. UNESCO. 2005. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005: The Quality Imperative. Paris: UNESCO, 3537.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang C., Sha Z., and Jia L.. 2021. Research on library digital resource evaluation system based on computer multimedia aid. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Computer Applications (ICPECA), IEEE. 662667.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Wang H. C.. 2016. On university governance: The ideal, reality and future. Journal of Higher Education 9 (2016), 17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Wu F.. 2018. The core conceptualization and assurance models in education 2030 framework for action—text analysis on policies and reports of UNESCO. Educational Research 1 (2018), 132141.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Xu X. Y.. 2018. Quality standard of undergraduate teaching in universities: Concept definition and system construction. Tsinghua Journal of Education 3 (2018), 5866.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. An Empirical Study on IPO Model Construction of Undergraduate Education Quality Evaluation in China from the Statistical Pattern Recognition Approach In NLP

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing
      ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing  Volume 21, Issue 6
      November 2022
      372 pages
      ISSN:2375-4699
      EISSN:2375-4702
      DOI:10.1145/3568970
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 12 November 2022
      • Online AM: 22 August 2022
      • Accepted: 2 June 2022
      • Revised: 6 April 2022
      • Received: 29 January 2022
      Published in tallip Volume 21, Issue 6

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!