A data-driven data-based model for assessing the quality of graduate quality education
Online veröffentlicht: 26. März 2025
Eingereicht: 04. Nov. 2024
Akzeptiert: 10. Feb. 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0801
Schlüsselwörter
© 2025 Yixuan Wang et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Postgraduate education is the continuation of undergraduate education, which plays a leading role in undergraduate education and even the whole education, and it is responsible for improving the level and quality of university teachers, cultivating high-level innovative talents, and upgrading the level of lifelong education and the platform of talent competition [1-2]. With the progress of Chinese higher education from elite education to mass education, the enrollment scale of postgraduates is gradually expanding, and how to ensure the quality improvement while increasing the quantity has become an important issue for postgraduate education [3-4]. Postgraduate quality education is an important part of postgraduate education, but also to improve the quality of postgraduate education is an important link, has been widely concerned by the education sector and all walks of life. Colleges and universities, as an important position of graduate education, is the main channel of graduate quality education, the level of graduate quality education in colleges and universities, not only directly affects and determines the winners and losers in the process of competition in the future of colleges and universities, but also affects the quality of China’s postgraduate education, and even determines China’s future and status in the new century [5-7].
Educational assessment is one of the three major research fields of modern education science. In order to realize the comprehensive improvement of the quality of higher education, the reform of higher education assessment is one of the important aspects, and only by establishing a scientific higher education assessment system and forming a strong assessment mechanism can the internal elements of the education system and the internal and external elements form a benign interaction and achieve long-term development [8-10]. The assessment of postgraduate quality education is conducive to strengthening the management of postgraduate quality education, promoting the reform and development of postgraduate quality education, guaranteeing and improving the quality of postgraduate quality education, which is of strategic significance to the long-term development of China’s postgraduate education, and has been generally emphasized by the education sector and the community [11-13].
In recent years, although the quality education of graduate students has been generally concerned by all training units, the promotion of quality education of graduate students still inevitably encounters various conceptual obstacles and practical difficulties [14]. At the same time, the actual effect of graduate quality education is not clear at a glance, and it needs to be overcome and presented by means of extensive publicity and educational assessment. Carrying out educational assessment is an important means to promote graduate quality education [15-16]. Through evaluation, on the one hand, it can expand the influence of postgraduate quality education, let more instructors, educational managers and educated people recognize the importance of postgraduate quality education, and strive for more understanding and support for quality education, on the other hand, it helps the education department to further understand the development and actual effect of quality education in each training unit, summarize the achievements and experiences, and promote the valuable ones [17-19].
This paper first outlines the principle of constructing a quality assessment model for graduate education quality, based on the relevant theoretical foundations of the concept of quality education. Secondly, a set of assessment system for the quality of postgraduate quality education is proposed based on the CIPP model, and the alternative elements affecting the assessment indexes of postgraduate quality education are selected in combination with theoretical thinking. The conceptual model of the graduate quality education quality assessment index system is determined through the screening of expert review indicators using the Delphi method. Hierarchical analysis is used to assign weights to the established quality assessment model of graduate quality education, and TOPSIS is used to derive the relative closeness, and the quality of quality education is judged by the comparison of relative closeness ranking. Finally, eight polytechnic colleges were selected as typical survey subjects, and the quality of postgraduate quality education in polytechnic colleges was scored using the postgraduate quality education quality assessment model proposed in this paper.
The determination of the weights of the indicators for assessing the quality of professional degree graduate education needs to be in line with the objective law of quality education for graduate students, and at the same time, it is necessary to pay attention to the embodiment of the characteristics of professional degree graduate education, and scientifically and reasonably formulate the quantitative standards of the assessment indicators.
Professional postgraduate education is mainly intended to cultivate high-level applied specialists with strong professional abilities and professionalism. Postgraduate students should focus on the practical application and utilization of their learning. Society, enterprises, and employers are driving forces for the development of professional degree graduate education, and schools need to cultivate professionals who can be utilized by enterprises and institutions. Therefore, the distinctive vocational and practical characteristics of professional degree graduate education determine that the determination of index weights should firstly pay attention to the external suitability of the quality of professional degree education.
At the same time, professional degree graduate students must master the theoretical knowledge and methods of solving practical problems through study in order to effectively solve the problems existing in the workplace. This is not only an important reason for professional degree students to pursue their degrees, but also a reflection of the value of teaching and scientific research. Therefore, the weighting of indicators for assessing the quality of professional degree postgraduate education should not ignore the internal quality requirements of academic aspects.
Whether the educational activities of professional degree graduate students fulfill their cultivation objectives is the main criterion to measure the quality of professional degree education, but the formulation of cultivation objectives is not static, the current problems such as the expansion of professional degree and the cold enrollment, the imperfection of the tutorial system, etc. are the embodiment of the incompatibility between the cultivation objectives and the sustained development, and how to solve these problems properly is of great significance to improve the quality of professional degree graduate education. The quality of graduate education for professional degrees is of great significance.
As the assessment standard to quantify the quality of professional degree education, the principle of combining goal achievement and sustainable development should be followed when determining the weights of the indexes, so as to complete the quality of professional degree education by emphasizing the goal achievement, and at the same time to realize the sustainable development of the graduate education of professional degree with the thinking of development.
A professional degree is an education model for training high-level applied talents urgently needed by society, and the government is concerned about the performance output of professional degrees. At the same time, universities, as the main bodies for training high-level applied talents, also aim to balance input and output. Furthermore, after paying a considerable amount of tuition fees, professional degree students are bound to be concerned about whether they can maximize their learning performance. Additionally, some enterprises offering joint training courses are also concerned about the training performance of instructors. However, focusing on cultivating performance is not equivalent to engaging in educational behaviors that excessively prioritize utilitarianism.
The determination of the weights of indicators for assessing the quality of professional graduate education should follow the principle of appropriate performance, and the quantitative assessment, as an important means of evaluating the quality of education, should set up a correct view of educational performance to guide the healthy development of professional graduate students.
This paper proposes a set of assessment system for the quality of graduate education based on the CIPP model, which consists of four assessment elements: background assessment, input assessment, process assessment and outcome assessment. In the field of postgraduate education, the background assessment mainly involves the institutional mechanism and current problems in China’s postgraduate education; the input assessment includes the assessment of manpower, material and financial resources for postgraduate education; the process assessment focuses on the process of postgraduate education, including enrollment, awarding of degrees, teaching, and supervision; and the assessment of the outcomes refers to the development of the main body of postgraduate education and whether it achieves the objectives of postgraduate education. The assessment of achievements refers to the development status of the main body of graduate education and whether the cultivation objectives of graduate education have been achieved. According to the components of the CIPP model, this paper identifies the first-level indicators of the assessment system of graduate education quality as follows: assessment of the background of graduate education and training, assessment of the input of graduate education and training, assessment of the process of graduate education and training and assessment of the results of graduate education and training. The assessment system aims to evaluate the quality of graduate education through the assessment of all aspects of the graduate education and training process. Through this assessment system, the current situation of graduate education can be accurately understood, problems can be found and improvements can be made, so as to improve the quality of graduate education and enhance the level of Chinese higher education. In the process of determining the secondary indicators in the assessment index system, this study combines the relevant theories of talent cultivation, as well as the fifth round of disciplinary assessment and the opinions of the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council and the Ministry of Education on the strengthening of the quality assurance and supervision system of degree and postgraduate education in the new period, etc., and comprehensively and systematically selects the secondary indicators under the four first-level indicators based on the assessment index layer of the first-level indicators mentioned above. The framework of the indicator system for the fifth round of disciplinary assessment is shown in Table 1.
Frame of the index system of the fifth round of discipline evaluation
| Primary index | Secondary index | Three-level index |
|---|---|---|
| A. Quality of personnel training | A1. Ideological and political education | S1. Characteristics and effects of ideological and political education |
| A2. Culture process | S2. Quality of published teaching materials | |
| S3. Curriculum construction and teaching quality | ||
| S4. Research and education results | ||
| S5. International exchange of students | ||
| A3. Student at school | S6. Representative results of students in school | |
| S7. Dissertation quality | ||
| A4.Graduate | S8. Quality of student employment and career development | |
| S9. Employer Evaluation (some disciplines) | ||
| B. Faculty and resources | B1. Teaching staff | S10. Achievements in the construction of teachers’ ethics and ethics |
| S11. Quality of teaching staff construction | ||
| B2. Platform resource | S12. Supporting platforms and major instruments (some disciplines) | |
| C. Level of scientific research (and art/design practice) | C1. Research results (and transformation) | S13. Quality of academic papers |
| S14. Quality of academic work (in some disciplines) | ||
| S15. Patent conversion (in some disciplines) | ||
| S16. Research and development and transformation of new varieties (some disciplines) | ||
| S17. Research and development of new drugs (some disciplines) | ||
| C2. Research projects and awards | S18. Research project situation | |
| S19. Scientific research awards | ||
| C3. Artistic practice achievement | S20. Art Practice Results (some disciplines) | |
| C4. Art/design practice projects and awards | S21. Art/Design Practice Projects (Some disciplines) | |
| S22. Award winning Art/Design Practice (Selected disciplines) | ||
| D. Community service and academic reputation | D1. Social service | S23. Social service contribution |
| D2. Discipline reputation | S24. Domestic reputation survey | |
| S25. International Reputation Survey (in some disciplines) |
Based on the “CIPP” assessment model and national policy guidelines, the previous article has selected 16 alternative elements of indicators for assessing the quality of postgraduate education based on theoretical considerations. Since the theoretical elements have not been empirically verified, further screening is still needed to ensure the scientificity of the indicators. Therefore, this study utilized Delphi analysis to seek opinions from experts in related fields to screen these 16 alternative index elements. Since it is one of the most commonly used attitude scales in social surveys, this study designed the questionnaire in the form of a Likert scale and invited members of the expert group to score it. The questionnaire was designed in five levels, and the experts filled in the questionnaire according to the back-to-back communication method, meanwhile, the questionnaire set open-ended questions at the end of the questionnaire to invite the experts to fill in the suggestions for the selection of indicators. This questionnaire invited 11 experts to fill in, including 2 college professors, 7 college associate professors, and 2 college lecturers. All the 11 questionnaires are valid, and finally the opinions of the 11 experts on the 16 assessment index elements are integrated, and the scoring table of the assessment index elements of graduate education quality is shown in Table 2.
Score table of postgraduate education quality evaluation index elements
| Serial number | Index element | Very important | Important | Normal | Unimportant | Very unimportant | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Teaching and management mechanism of postgraduate education | 7 | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 2 | Postgraduate education resource allocation mechanism | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| 3 | Postgraduate admission selection mechanism | 6 | 2 | 3 | 3 | ||
| 4 | Postgraduate training philosophy and objectives | 5 | 6 | ||||
| 5 | Achievements in the construction of teachers’ ethics and ethics | 5 | 2 | 4 | 4 | ||
| 6 | Quality of teaching staff construction | 7 | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 7 | Teaching equipment and materials | 1 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 9 | |
| 8 | Scientific research fund input | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | ||
| 9 | Scholarship system for graduate students | 7 | 1 | 3 | 3 | ||
| 10 | Curriculum construction and teaching quality | 8 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||
| 11 | Dissertation quality and degree awarding management | 6 | 2 | 3 | 3 | ||
| 12 | Ideological and political education | 2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | ||
| 13 | Research achievements and transformation | 6 | 3 | 2 | 9 | ||
| 14 | Quality of student employment and career development | 2 | 6 | 3 | 3 | ||
| 15 | Social service participation and contribution rate | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| 16 | Academic reputation | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
When processing the results of the returned questionnaires, the alternative indicator factors are scored according to the principle of “general” 1 point, “not important” 2 points, “very unimportant” 3 points. The alternative index factors are scored, and each score is added up to the questionnaire score. Through calculation and statistics, the total score of the 11 experts’ scoring table is 55 points, and the average score is 5 points. Alternative indicator factors with scores lower than 5 are retained, those with scores between 5 and 10 are selected, and those with scores higher than 10 are deleted directly. According to the above scoring rules, the two alternative indicator elements of teaching equipment and materials and scientific research achievements and transformation need further consideration as to whether they should be retained or not.
According to the open-ended questions in the returned questionnaires, two experts suggested that the assessment system should pay attention to another indicator in addition to the 16 elements: the factor of “mental health of postgraduates”, which belongs to the assessment of the process of postgraduates’ education and cultivation; with the increasing demand for postgraduates from the society and the impact of the new crown epidemic in recent years. With the increasing demand for graduate students in society and the impact of the new crown epidemic in recent years, the pressure faced by graduate students is getting higher and higher, and the issue of mental health is increasingly being emphasized by the public. At the same time, certain pathological relationships between students and faculty have led to anxiety, depression, and other psychological problems among graduate students. After exchanging and discussing with experts, it was decided to keep the indicator of “mental health of postgraduates” and select it to be assessed in the quality assessment system of postgraduate education, and to delete the indicator of “teaching equipments and materials”.
So far, 16 assessment index elements have been obtained, and the conceptual model of the graduate education quality assessment index system is shown in Table 3.
Conceptual model of graduate education quality evaluation index system
| Primary index | Secondary index |
|---|---|
| Graduate education training background | Teaching and management mechanism of postgraduate education |
| Postgraduate education resource allocation mechanism | |
| Postgraduate admission selection mechanism | |
| Postgraduate training philosophy and objectives | |
| Investment in graduate education and training | Achievements in the construction of teachers’ ethics and ethics |
| Quality of teaching staff construction | |
| Scientific research fund input | |
| Scholarship system for graduate students | |
| Graduate education training process | Curriculum construction and teaching quality |
| Dissertation quality and degree awarding managemen | |
| Ideological and political education | |
| Graduate student mental health | |
| Graduate education and training results | Research achievements and transformation |
| Quality of student employment and career development | |
| Social service participation and contribution rate | |
| Academic reputation |
This paper proposes a set of assessment system for the quality of graduate education based on the CIPP model, and then it is necessary to determine the weights of the indicators, and the setting of the weight coefficients of the indicators can affect the evaluation results and the scientificity of the evaluation to a large extent. In practical application, the hierarchical analysis method (AHP) is more and more widely used to determine the weight coefficients of indicators. In order to assign weights to the already established quality evaluation system of master’s graduate education and to determine the evaluation system of this paper by combining the hierarchical analysis method, this paper distributes the second round of questionnaires to experts. This time, 15 questionnaires were distributed and 14 were recovered, with a recovery rate of 93.3%.
According to the process of calculating the index weight coefficients of expert A, the evaluation results of the remaining 13 experts are calculated, and the weights of the first-level indexes on the evaluation of the quality of master’s postgraduate education are obtained respectively and consistency test is conducted, and the CR value is less than 0.1, which is in line with the requirements of the coherence test, and the results of calculating the weights of the first-level indexes of all the experts are shown in Table 4.
Calculation Table of First Grade Index Weight of all the Experts
| Expert | Background | Investment | Process | Result | CI | CR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.2071 | 0.2775 | 0.2960 | 0.1477 | 4.0206 | 0.0404 | 0.0399 |
| 2 | 0.1628 | 0.3030 | 0.3407 | 0.1650 | 4.1171 | 0.0404 | 0.0449 |
| 3 | 0.1703 | 0.3618 | 0.3925 | 0.1666 | 4.0604 | 0.0390 | 0.0224 |
| 4 | 0.2026 | 0.3520 | 0.2865 | 0.1650 | 4.0206 | 0.0201 | 0.0434 |
| 5 | 0.1477 | 0.3872 | 0.2865 | 0.1650 | 4.0604 | 0.0069 | 0.0076 |
| 6 | 0.1628 | 0.3407 | 0.3225 | 0.1650 | 4.0604 | 0.0359 | 0.0224 |
| 7 | 0.1628 | 0.3618 | 0.3030 | 0.1477 | 4.1171 | 0.0201 | 0.0434 |
| 8 | 0.1760 | 0.2775 | 0.3925 | 0.2026 | 4.0604 | 0.0359 | 0.0224 |
| 9 | 0.1628 | 0.3520 | 0.3270 | 0.1518 | 4.0206 | 0.0201 | 0.0076 |
| 10 | 0.1650 | 0.3407 | 0.3270 | 0.1518 | 4.0604 | 0.0069 | 0.0224 |
| 11 | 0.2026 | 0.2775 | 0.2865 | 0.1703 | 4.0206 | 0.0201 | 0.0224 |
| 12 | 0.2026 | 0.3470 | 0.3270 | 0.1635 | 4.0206 | 0.0359 | 0.0076 |
| 13 | 0.1477 | 0.3520 | 0.2960 | 0.1760 | 4.0604 | 0.0201 | 0.0399 |
| 14 | 0.1635 | 0.3618 | 0.3925 | 0.1635 | 4.0206 | 0.0069 | 0.0076 |
| Average | 0.1596 | 0.3337 | 0.3395 | 0.1744 | |||
| Standard deviation | 0.0211 | 0.0356 | 0.0384 | 0.0228 | |||
| Variation coefficient | 0.1322 | 0.1067 | 0.1131 | 0.1307 |
As can be seen from the table, the CR value of the 14 experts is less than 0.1, and there is consistency in the judgment of the indicators; the coefficients of variation of the experts are 13.22%, 10.67%, 11.31%, and 13.07%, which are less than 15%, which indicates that the degree of dispersion is low, and the opinions of the experts are relatively consistent, and the weighting coefficients of the indicators are scientific; therefore, the weights of the first-level indicators are determined as shown in Table 5.
Weight of First Grade Index
| Primary index | Background | Investment | Process | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight factor | 0.16 | 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.17 |
In accordance with the above method, the weight coefficients of secondary indicators of 14 experts are obtained, and the CR values of 14 experts are less than 0.1; the coefficients of variation are less than 15%. The final evaluation system of master’s graduate education quality is obtained as shown in Table 6.
Evaluation Index System of Postgraduate Education Quality
| Primary index | Secondary index |
|---|---|
| Graduate education training background 0.16 | Teaching and management mechanism of postgraduate education 0.0180 |
| Postgraduate education resource allocation mechanism 0.0532 | |
| Postgraduate admission selection mechanism 0.0775 | |
| Postgraduate training philosophy and objectives 0.0113 | |
| Investment in graduate education and training 0.33 | Achievements in the construction of teachers’ ethics and ethics 0.0505 |
| Quality of teaching staff construction 0.0483 | |
| Scientific research fund input 0.0820 | |
| Scholarship system for graduate students 0.1492 | |
| Graduate education training process 0.34 | Curriculum construction and teaching quality 0.0720 |
| Dissertation quality and degree awarding management 0.0548 | |
| Ideological and political education 0.0375 | |
| Graduate student mental health 0.1757 | |
| Graduate education and training results 0.17 | Research achievements and transformation 0.0185 |
| Quality of student employment and career development 0.0390 | |
| Social service participation and contribution rate 0.0591 | |
| Academic reputation 0.0534 |
After determining the weights of the indicators through hierarchical analysis, the TOPSIS method was used to derive the relative closeness, and the ranking comparison was used to judge the quality of education.
Step 1: Construct the normalization matrix
Step 2: Construct the weighting matrix
Step 3: Determine the set of solutions for positive and negative ideals
Step 4: Determine the Euclidean distance. Based on the positive and negative ideal solutions, the distance
Step 5: Calculate the relative closeness
Step 6: Risk size ranking. According to the previous step to calculate the size of the relative proximity of the object to be assessed for risk ranking,
The implementation of the questionnaire survey mainly selected students, teachers and cooperative units of eight polytechnic institutions in China as typical survey subjects to score the quality of graduate quality education in polytechnic institutions. A total of 760 questionnaires were distributed and 668 valid questionnaires were recovered, with a valid questionnaire recovery rate of 87.9%. The eight institutions are recorded as A1~A8. In order to quantitatively process the assessment indexes, five evaluation levels are set, and the set of rubrics is as follows: V={High, Higher, Medium, Lower, Low}, and the corresponding matrix of level scores can be set as CT=[5 4 3 2 1].
Firstly, the normalization matrix Z is calculated according to the formula in (1), i.e., the data of the questionnaire is quantified without outline. Then the weighted normalization matrix X is derived in order to find out the positive and negative ideal values, i.e., the weights of the evaluation element of the first-level evaluation index educational training achievements calculated by the hierarchical analysis method of 3.2 are multiplied by the normalization matrix, and the results of the weighted normalization matrix of educational training achievements are shown in Table 7.
Weighted normalized moment X of education and training results
| School | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 0.049340 | 0.047822 | 0.136828 | 0.082642 | 0.051327 |
| A2 | 0.040287 | 0.048271 | 0.129731 | 0.089718 | 0.059272 |
| A3 | 0.041753 | 0.047297 | 0.127432 | 0.072864 | 0.068632 |
| A4 | 0.047072 | 0.046392 | 0.125370 | 0.075234 | 0.062431 |
| A5 | 0.045501 | 0.045293 | 0.127543 | 0.083285 | 0.066723 |
| A6 | 0.042615 | 0.052164 | 0.121324 | 0.088384 | 0.068632 |
| A7 | 0.037812 | 0.050273 | 0.124358 | 0.083921 | 0.063725 |
| A8 | 0.039263 | 0.054437 | 0.103254 | 0.085921 | 0.068913 |
The optimal and worst solutions are obtained from Eqs. (3)(4):
A+=(0.049340 0.054437 0.136828 0.089718 0.068913)
A-=(0.037812 0.045293 0.103254 0.072864 0.051327)
According to equations (5)(6)(7), the d+, d- and C of the postgraduate education and training results of the eight polytechnic institutions are calculated. The relative proximity C represents the ranking of each institution. A comparison of the d+, d- and C results of the eight polytechnic institutions is shown in Figure 1.
d+,d- and C results of educational training outcomes of each institution
According to the results of Figure 1, we can sort the eight schools of A (i=1,2.... .8) these eight schools in order: a2>a1>a5>a6>a7>a2>a3>a8, from the ordering we can see that the higher score is A2, followed by A1. The lowest score is A8, which indicates that the institution should strengthen the situation of graduate education and training results. In addition, from the d+ and d- of each institution, we can see more clearly that the distance between positive and negative ideal values of A1 and A2 is larger compared with other institutions, and the opposite is true for A3 and A7.
Similarly, the evaluation results of other first-level indicators can be derived.
Firstly, the normalization matrix Z is calculated according to the formula in (1), i.e., the data of the questionnaire is quantified without outline. Then the weighted normalization matrix X is derived in order to find out the positive and negative ideal values, and the assessment results of each level of indicators obtained from the calculation and analysis are weighted and integrated and multiplied by the normalization matrix, and the results are shown in Table 8.
Weighted standardized moment X of quality education
| School | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 0.039274 | 0.079563 | 0.149532 | 0.096242 | 0.064532 |
| A2 | 0.040245 | 0.078541 | 0.148624 | 0.093245 | 0.053886 |
| A3 | 0.039136 | 0.076353 | 0.145623 | 0.092424 | 0.063562 |
| A4 | 0.039264 | 0.078264 | 0.142947 | 0.091315 | 0.064877 |
| A5 | 0.036821 | 0.070284 | 0.138962 | 0.094322 | 0.070845 |
| A6 | 0.038623 | 0.071378 | 0.140972 | 0.088479 | 0.069374 |
| A7 | 0.034972 | 0.058264 | 0.129642 | 0.079863 | 0.063256 |
| A8 | 0.038794 | 0.069320 | 0.113974 | 0.072357 | 0.069634 |
The optimal and worst solutions are obtained from Eqs. (3)(4):
A+=(0.040245 0.079563 0.149532 0.096242 0.069634)
A-=(0.034972 0.058264 0.113974 0.072357 0.053886)
According to equations (5)(6)(7), the d+, d- and C of the quality of postgraduate quality education in the eight polytechnic institutions are calculated. The relative proximity C is represented by the ranking of each institution. A comparison of the results of d+, d- and C of the quality of postgraduate education in the eight polytechnic institutions is shown in Figure 2.
d+, d- and C results of quality education in each institution
According to the results of Fig. 2, we can sort the eight schools of A(i=1,2.... .8) the eight schools sorted: A1>A3>A4>A2>A5>A6>A7>A8, from the sorting we can see that the higher score is A1, followed by A3. The lowest score is A8, which indicates that the institution should strengthen the quality situation of graduate quality education. In addition, from the d+ and d- of each institution, we are able to see more clearly that the distance between positive and negative ideals is larger for A1 compared to other institutions, while the opposite is true for A6 and A7.
In this paper, we constructed a model for assessing the quality of graduate quality education based on digital drive, and selected eight polytechnic colleges and universities to assess and empirically analyze the quality of graduate quality education.
At the level of the first-level evaluation index education and training results, A2>A1>A5>A6>A7> A2>A3>A8, from the ranking we can see that the higher score is A2, with a relative proximity C of 0.666, followed by A1, with a relative proximity C of 0.657.The lowest score is A8, with a relative proximity C of 0.403, which indicates that the institution should strengthen the postgraduate education and training Outcomes. In addition, from the d+ and d- of each institution, it can be clearly seen that the distance between the positive and negative ideal values of A1 and A2 is larger compared with other institutions, while the opposite is true for A3 and A7.
At the level of overall quality of education, A1>A3>A4>A2>A5>A6>A7>A8, from the ranking we can see that the higher score is A1, with the relative proximity C of 0.914, followed by A3, with the relative proximity C of 0.828, and the lowest score is A8, with the relative proximity C of 0.304, which indicates that the institution should strengthen the quality of graduate quality education. In addition, from the d+ and d- of each institution, it can be clearly seen that the distance between positive and negative ideals of A1 is larger compared to other institutions, while the opposite is true for A6 and A7.