Analysis and New Connotation of the Improvement Path of College Teachers’ Quality using Data Mining in the Perspective of Establishing Virtuous People

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

The most important qualities of teachers are (multiple choice)

Options	Teaching ability	Moral quality	Innovation quality	Scientific research ability	Ability to serve society
Percentage/%	90.55	95.29	74.16	74.45	73.88

Weights of main influence factors

Key Indicators	Column number	Main impact factors	Variance contribution rate	Weights
Basic Quality	D	Teaching Cultivation	0.862	0.317
	F	Professional level	0.923	0.338
	G	Teacher-student relationship	0.928	0.344
Teaching attitude	C	Teaching concept	0.852	0.322
	E	Self-reflection	0.958	0.362
	J	Teaching Environment	0.852	0.318
Teaching level	H	Lecture level	0.868	0.488
	I	Teaching Achievements	0.907	0.512

The main factors affecting the development of teachers’ ethics in colleges are (multiple choice)

Options	Social ethos	Teacher treatment	Relevant assessment system	Personal quality	School importance
Percentage/%	82.77	84.45	82.23	79.71	71.95

The results of literature search in each category

Title	Journals (piece)	Core journals and CSSCI journals (piece)	Master’s degree thesis record(piece)
Teacher moral construction in higher education	3101	457	81
The path of teacher moral construction in colleges	187	33	4

Descriptive analysis of professional quality of teachers in local universities and the three dimensions

	Score	Number of people	Percentage/%	Mean value	Standard deviation
Emotional exhaustion	<3	132	62.52	2.3552	0.65008
	=3	13	7.05
	>3	25	30.43
Dehumanization	<3	165	97.65	1.3215	0.52139
	=3	3	1.75
	>3	2	0.6

Evaluation of professional quality as a teacher (single choice)

Options	Excellent	Qualified	Basic competence	Still need to work
Percentage/%	55.29	37.51	4.43	2.79

Correlation matrix between the total satisfaction questionnaire and each factor

	Leadership Management	Compensation and benefits	Work itself	Work Environment	Interpersonal relationship	Total Average Score
Leadership Management	1
Compensation and benefits	0.488**	1
Work itself	0.262**	0.336**	1
Work Environment	0.388**	0.288**	0.466**	1
Interpersonal relationship	0.414**	0.455**	0.366**	0.368**	1
Total Average Score	0.743**	0.737**	0.615**	0.643**	0.746**	1

Weights of the three key indicators

Indicators	Basic quality	Teaching attitude	Teaching content
Weighting	0.305	0.202	0.494

Self-evaluation data description and impact factor table

Number	Column number	Data description	Impact Factor
1	C	Design of educational objectives	Objective Design
2	D	Teaching content arrangement	Teaching content
3	E	Implementation of classroom teaching	Classroom instruction
4	F	Assignment and correction of homework	Assignments
5	G	After-class counseling	After-class tutorials
6	H	Relationship with students	Teacher-Student Relationship
7	I	Self-expertise	Professional level
8	J	Reflection and improvement of own problems	Self-reflection
9	K	Motivating students and enlivening the classroom atmosphere	Classroom atmosphere
10	L	Effective use of various teaching media	Media Utilization

Description of the basic situation of the sample

Projects	Category	Percentage/%	Projects	Category	Percentage/%
Gender	Male	37.2	Number of classes you teach in an average week	<10 sections	65.2
	Female	62.8		10-15 sections	25.8
Age	<35 years old	31.3		>15 sections	9.0
	35-45 years old	53.1	Title	Assistant Professor	10.5
	>45 years old	15.6		Lecturer	43.6
Marital status	Unmarried	17.5		Associate Professor	32.8
	Married	82.5		Professor	12.1
Political appearance	Communist Party member	74.2	Subjects taught	Liberal Arts	42.8
	Ethnic party affiliation	6.4		Science	49.4
	group of people	19.4		Art Sports	4.17
Teaching time	5 years and below	30.0	Whether you have study abroad experience	Yes	20.2
	5-10 years	38.7		No	79.8
	10-15 years	15.5	Part-time administrative position	Yes	17.1
	15 years or more	15.8		No	82.8
School Attributes	Public Schools	98.9	Monthly income	<6000	40.5
	Private Schools	1.1		6000-8000	52.8
				>8000	6.7

Colleague evaluation data description and impact factor table

Number	Column number	Data description	Impact Factor
1	C	Recognize and improve new educational concepts, promote the transformation of teaching and learning styles	Teaching concept
2	D	Education and teaching theory education	Teaching Cultivation
3	E	Self-reflection and correction	Self-reflection
4	F	Professional research level	Professional level
5	G	Respect for students, good teacher-student relationship	Teacher-student relationship
6	H	Mandarin is standard, fluent and clear	Lecture level
7	I	Significant teaching achievements	Teaching Achievements
8	J	Reasonable structure of teaching environment	Teaching Environment
9	K	Active reference to other teachers’ excellent teaching methods	Learning from others

Correlation matrix between the total quality questionnaire and each factor

	Low achievement	Dehumanization	Emotional exhaustion	Total Mean Score
Low achievement	1
Dehumanization	0.556**	1
Emotional exhaustion	0.672**	0.622**	1
Total Mean Score	0.812**	0.812**	0.793**	1

Data description of expert evaluation with impact factor table

Number	Column number	Data description	Impact Factor
1	C	Enthusiastic and energetic in lectures	Teaching Enthusiasm
2	D	The lecture is infectious and can attract students’ attention	Lecture ideas
3	E	In-depth and inspiring presentation of issues	Inspirational
4	F	Concise and accurate presentation of problems, focused and clear thinking	Question ideas
5	G	The lectures are informative and informative	Lecture content
6	H	Be proficient and comfortable with the course content	Flexible methods
7	I	The teaching content can reflect or relate to new ideas, concepts and achievements in the discipline	Frontiers of the discipline
8	J	Give students topics for reflection, association and innovation	Development of thinking
9	K	Stimulate students’ emotions and enliven the classroom atmosphere	Classroom atmosphere
10	L	Can effectively use various teaching media	Use of media

Weights of four one-layer indicators

Indicators	Student Evaluation	Colleague Evaluation	Expert Evaluation	Self-evaluation
Weighting	0.312	0.333	0.218	0.137