Integration and Innovation of Higher Education Management and Student Training Mechanisms Based on Big Data
Publié en ligne: 17 mars 2025
Reçu: 08 nov. 2024
Accepté: 19 févr. 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0259
Mots clés
© 2025 Shucheng Li, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Higher education is an important way to implement the training of talents, but also the main link to cultivate innovative talents, in the rapid development of the times advanced technology and all walks of life to carry out a comprehensive integration of higher education management and student training mechanism innovation has become a necessary way to promote the development of education. Higher education needs to constantly adapt to the development of the times to innovate the teaching mode, update the teaching concept, adjust the education and teaching system [1-4].
Educational management is a basic element of the management system of higher education institutions, and it is a key factor in determining the level of comprehensive management of the school. The level and quality of education management will not only affect the comprehensive management ability of the school, but also have a significant impact on the development of the school [5-7]. The innovation of education management and student training mechanism is conducive to the realization of comprehensive optimization of education management, when carrying out education management, managers can use the network of new media and other modern technologies to deal with the content of the work, compared with the traditional form of manpower processing is more convenient, and more accurate. The innovation of education management and student training mechanism can also enhance the flexibility of school management [8-11]. The rapid development of the times has made more and more advanced network information platforms begin to integrate with the education management of colleges and universities, and the application and opening of these information platforms have brought a greater amount of resources to students’ learning and life, and students’ learning is no longer restricted by traditional forms [12-15], no longer limited to venue and time, and can even be directly online anytime and anywhere to start learning, using the network system to browse or download the content they want to learn. In addition, the innovation of education management and student training mechanism can also promote education management to achieve comprehensive optimization and enhance the flexibility of school management [16-18].
This paper combines the basic needs and main goals of higher education management and student cultivation mechanism, and designs the integration and innovation model of higher education management and student cultivation mechanism in the era of big data. It enables the mutual penetration and integration between big data analysis and various aspects of education management and student cultivation, and improves the extent of model implementation and the effect on educating people. Subsequently, an assessment system for the implementation effectiveness of the innovative fusion model of higher education management and student cultivation mechanism is proposed to analyze the rationality of the indicators by analyzing the degree of concentration and the degree of discretization of the indicators, and to determine the weights of the indicators by using the Delphi method to establish the assessment method. Meanwhile, a questionnaire was designed to collect data on the satisfaction of university students with the implementation of the model. In this study, four different types of colleges and universities are selected as the implementation pilot of the integration innovation model of educational management and student training mechanism in colleges and universities, and the implementation effectiveness of the model and the students’ satisfaction with the implementation of the model are analyzed in order to explore the feasibility of the integration innovation model of educational management and student training mechanism in colleges and universities.
Higher education management [19] and student training mechanism [20] integration innovation model involves a number of factors, a number of links, this paper argues that the connotation of the new model of student education and management in local colleges and universities contains four interrelated and interacting wholes, namely, the student training goal, the main body of education and management, the process of education and management, and the mechanism of education and management. The goal of education management and cultivation of students in colleges and universities is to develop socialist builders and successors with a comprehensive development of morality, intelligence, physicality, aesthetics, and labor.The main focus of education management has changed from a single subject to a multiple subject, and students have been changed from passively educated to educated, and from education objects to self-education and self-management subjects. At the same time, the student work education manager is also transformed from an education manager to a guide, and under this model, the student work education manager not only includes the managers of the academic work system, but also includes all the teachers and administrators, as well as the parents and the positive energy of the society to lead. In the past, the management of student education in local colleges and universities was a closed and static management process, while the management based on the Internet as a carrier can make full use of big data, deeply digging into the growth trajectory of the students, and evaluating the students’ behaviors, so as to achieve dynamic adjustments and precise guidance. In the face of the open educational environment, the diversification of the main body of education, the diversification of education resources, and the dynamization of the education process, the only way to achieve the goal of school education is to penetrate and integrate the Internet with various educational carriers, establish a new type of teacher-student relationship, equality and interaction, integrate and integrate the big data resources of the school, faculties and departments, classes, and the family, society and other departments, and to form a collaborative linkage system and path to achieve the goal of school education. The essence of the connotation of the innovation model of education management and cultivation mechanism of colleges and universities under the background of “Internet+” is to establish a new type of teacher-student relationship that is equal and interactive.
Based on this, the integration innovation model of higher education management and student training mechanism constructed in the era of big data in this paper is shown in Figure 1. Under the background of “Internet+”, facing the open, diversified and interactive new educational ecological environment, the concept, content and realization of student education and management in local universities will undergo a series of new changes. Accordingly, the goal of student education and management in local colleges and universities has changed from managing things to educating people, the space of education and management has been extended from the school to outside the school, and the main body of education and management has changed from the education administrator to the students’ self-education. The way of education management is shifting from single to interactive, and the process of management is shifting from the aftermath to the whole process of management before, during, and after the event.The education management team is becoming more and more specialized, the education management information is being networked, and the education management work pattern tends to be three-dimensional. This new model of student education management in local colleges and universities is a new model of student education management and cultivation integration with students as the main body, education managers as the leading role, family, school and society synergy, and multi-factor linkage of education carriers. Students are the mainstay of the school, including student groups, clubs, and organizations, as well as their self-education and self-management.Professional teachers, counselors, and administrators work together to play a leading role in students’ studies and lives, and to help students set great ambitions, cultivate their character, learn to learn, and learn to do. Focusing on the school’s goal of educating people, breaking through campus boundaries, leveraging the Internet platform, building an open, interactive home, school and community collaborative space for educating people, promoting professional teaching, second classroom, campus culture and environment, safety and security, etc., multi-factor, multi-departmental, multi-links, multi-channels, and organic linkage, to create a comprehensive, all-rounded new type of ecosystem of student education and management of local colleges and universities, and to promote the all-around growth of students to become a successful person. The “Internet+” era has created an open and free cyberspace. In the new model, emphasis is placed on building the penetration and integration of “Internet Plus” with various educational management carriers and linking with them organically, breaking down the boundaries of time and space, realizing the leap between classroom and off-campus, on-campus and off-campus, and between the real and virtual worlds, and greatly enhancing the extensiveness of education and management, expanding the coverage of education and management as well as the time and space for nurturing human beings.
Education management and training mechanism fusion innovation model
The effectiveness index system of the implementation of the innovation model of integration of higher education management and student training mechanism is evaluated by assessing the effects of both ideological education and ability cultivation of students. The specific index system is shown in Table 1, where ideological education includes the effects of ideological performance and moral quality cultivation, while ability cultivation includes the effects of both comprehensive ability and comprehensive quality.
The evaluation index of the fusion innovation model
| Primary indicator | Secondary indicator | Tertiary index | Index number |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thought education (A) | Ideological and political performance (A1) | Three-view performance | A11 |
| Social responsibility | A12 | ||
| Political loyalty | A13 | ||
| Communism ideal | A14 | ||
| Moral quality (A2) | Good judgment | A21 | |
| Behavior performance | A22 | ||
| Honesty | A23 | ||
| Dedication | A24 | ||
| Ability culture (B) | Comprehensive ability (B1) | Interpersonal communication and coordination | B11 |
| Planning organization capability | B12 | ||
| Verbal and verbal ability | B13 | ||
| Team ability | B14 | ||
| Comprehensive quality (B2) | Physical quality | B21 | |
| Mental quality | B22 | ||
| professionalism | B23 | ||
| Humanistic and artistic cultivation | B24 |
The preliminary screening of the indicator system is only a screening of the indicators in the framework, the relationship between the indicators is not sorted out, and it is not very instructive for practical operation, so it is necessary to carry out the next step for the screened indicators, such as “testing of the indicator system” and “optimization of the indicator system”, this process is called testing and structural optimization of the comprehensive evaluation indicator system. Optimization”, this process is called testing and structural optimization of the comprehensive evaluation index system. Among them, testing comprehensive evaluation indexes consists of two parts: one for individual testing and the other for overall testing.
The individual testing of the comprehensive evaluation index system is a systematic work, which not only needs to analyze the feasibility of the evaluation indexes, but also needs to analyze whether the selection of the indexes is correct or not, and then to explain the authenticity of the indexes in detail.
The feasibility of an indicator is examined from the point of view of the economic applicability of the operability of this indicator, that is to say, the difficulty of obtaining the indicator is analyzed; if the indicator is difficult to obtain, adding it to the comprehensive indicator system will make it less implementable, which is not in line with the principle of practicality of the indicator system. Feasibility refers to the operability of the indicator. The correctness of the indicator is to describe whether the indicator reflects the real situation of reality, which can be confirmed by comparing it with historical data.The authenticity of an indicator is a reflection of whether it is suitable for examination by a comprehensive evaluation method.
In the process of building a comprehensive indicator system, the number of indicators needs to be considered, and it is necessary to consider whether the more the number of indicators the better, it is clear that according to the principles of the construction of the indicator system can be seen, this statement is incorrect, too many indicators will lead to the focus of the information can not be emphasized, so the need to delete such an unimportant and repetitive indicators, that is, the overall quiz on the indicator system. This process is carried out through three aspects of work: importance, overall necessity, and consistency of the indicator system.
First, there is the importance test. After testing the previous indicators individually and understanding their meaning, it can be realized that some indicators reflect the same meaning, so they can be deleted.There is also the fact that, after the importance ranking, some indicators deviate from the reflected theme and need to be deleted.This characteristic of the indicators is determined by calculating the degree of concentration and the degree of dispersion of the indicators.
The number of indicators at one level in the comprehensive indicator system is M, and the number of experts invited is P. The results of the returned comments are analyzed comprehensively:
Secondly, it is the overall necessity test. The necessity of the indicator needs to be examined from the overall perspective of the comprehensive evaluation index system, i.e., whether the indicator is a necessary indicator for evaluating the cultivation of innovative talents in colleges and universities, and if it is not a necessary indicator, it needs to be deleted. Again, it is the consistency test. The consistency test determines if there is consistency between the evaluation index system and the evaluation method.After the test, the proposed indicator system above is consistent with the normative.
The data analysis in this paper is based on the purpose of obtaining an assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of the innovative model of integration of higher education management and student training mechanisms, and the specific process of data analysis is shown in Figure 2. Through the combination of qualitative and quantitative research, the quantitative data are expressed through certain channels and forms, and then on this basis, scientific statistical methods are applied to analyze, summarize and conclude the collected data.
Fusion innovation model effectiveness evaluates the data analysis process
In this indicator system, the weights of the indicators are established using the Delphi method [21]. When determining the weights, it is usually necessary to pay attention to the principle of relevance, goal orientation and system optimization, which is the embodiment of the degree of importance of the indicator elements in each level to the higher level indicators, and its size and the degree of importance (influence) are positively correlated, and the value is also set between 0-1, and the sum of the weights of the indicator attributes at all levels should be equal to 1. In the indicator system, rules and ranges have been established for indicator scores, so that evaluators do not have to consider the weight of the indicators during the scoring process. In the process of scoring, the evaluator does not need to consider the weights of the indicators, but only refers to the range of values and scores each indicator attribute directly according to the actual situation of student management and cultivation, as the relative score of the indicator. As for the upper level indicators, the actual score should be the product of its relative score and its weight, and this correlation relationship applies to both adjacent or non-adjacent bipolar indicators. Through this correlation relationship, the actual scores of the indicators at all levels can be derived, which leads to the quantitative evaluation results of the whole indicator system. The calculation of the score for the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of the innovative model of integration of higher education management and student training mechanisms is then expressed as follows:
This paper analyzes the satisfaction of the implementation of the integration innovation model of higher education management and student cultivation mechanism by using a questionnaire on the implementation effect of the integration innovation model of higher education management and student cultivation mechanism. The questionnaire contains a total of two dimensions: the effect of higher education management (education mode, curriculum), and the effect of student cultivation (cultivation objectives, cultivation system). The responses were based on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “fully meets”, “basically meets”, “not sure”, “not quite meets” and “not at all meets”, with scores of “5, 4, 3, 2, 1” respectively. After the development of the questionnaire, it is necessary to verify the scientific validity of the questionnaire, since the questionnaire is divided into three parts, namely, the basic information of the individual student, the effect of the implementation of education and management, and the effect of the training of students. Questionnaire reliability and validity tests were conducted separately for each part of the questionnaire using SPSS 22.0 statistical software. The internal consistency test Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the questionnaire for the effect of educational management implementation and the effect of student training were 0.875 and 0.867 respectively, the KMO value of exploratory factor analysis was 0.965 and 0.972, and the value of the significant level in the Bartlett’s spherical test Bartlett was 0.000. The test results show that the questionnaire meets the requirements of the questionnaire and meets good reliability and validity standards.
Although the cultivation program mainly includes several aspects such as cultivation objectives, cultivation period, research direction, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment. However, due to the nature of each university, social status, and differences in disciplinary advantages, each school has a different focus on education management and student training programs. This may lead to differences in the implementation effect of the innovative integration model of higher education management and student training mechanism proposed in this paper in colleges and universities of different natures. The main universities selected for this study are the four sample universities, of which Y1 university is a comprehensive university, Y2 university is a teacher training university, Y3 university is a financial university, and Y4 university is an agricultural and forestry university. The four universities are representative cases and are more typical.
In terms of study periods, all four universities have established a four-year system, and except for University Y3, the other three schools have a wide range of study periods and implement flexible study periods.From the perspective of student training mechanisms at the four universities, they mainly train professionals for related industries.There are schools that have research directions that are distinct from others based on their own characteristics, taking full advantage of their strengths. For example, University Y1 has two research directions, Psychological Science and the Scientification of Educational Management as well as National Defense Education Management, because there are majors in Psychology and National Defense Education in this comprehensive university, which helps to carry out such research directions in conjunction with the major. Therefore, when implementing the innovative integration model of higher education management and student training mechanism, each school should consider how to utilize its own advantages and how to integrate them appropriately in order to reflect the training characteristics of the university.
All four universities pay attention to the importance of teachers in the training of students, so teachers play an important role in shaping and guiding students in the process of training. The tutor-responsible system is the foundation of training at university Y1, which requires students to combine theoretical study with independent research, lectures with student group discussions, and thematic analysis with case studies.University Y2 adopts the combination of tutor responsibility and tutor group collective training, requiring students to combine theoretical study with scientific research and actively participate in the research.University Y3 also adopts the combination of group collective training and individual guidance from tutors.Y2 University adopts the cultivation method, which combines tutor responsibility and tutor group collective cultivation, requiring students to combine theoretical study with scientific research and actively participate in the research of the topic.Y3 University also adopts the cultivation method combining tutor group’s collective cultivation and tutor’s individual guidance, adhering to the learning method of theoretical study as the main focus, supplemented by scientific research and practical exercise, and adopting the teaching form of teacher’s lectures, students’ self-study, group discussion and individual report. Y4 University uses lectures, discussions, and case studies during classroom teaching.The process takes the form of lectures, discussions, and presentations, and requires participation in practice in conjunction with the tutor’s topic.
This paper utilizes the assessment system and assessment method of the implementation effectiveness of the integration innovation model of higher education management and student training mechanism proposed in the previous paper to assess the implementation effectiveness of the model in four colleges and universities, and if the average value of a dimension is more than 3, it is regarded as a medium-high level, which indicates that the implementation effectiveness of the model in colleges and universities is good. If the mean value of a dimension is below 3, it indicates that its effectiveness is poor after the implementation of the model. The results of the assessment of the effectiveness of the innovative implementation model for the integration of higher education management and student training mechanism in Y1 colleges and universities are shown in Table 2, and the results of the assessment of the effectiveness of the innovative implementation model for the integration of higher education management and student training mechanism in Y2 colleges and universities are shown in Table 3. From the assessment results of Y1 colleges and universities, the average value of each dimension is above 3 points, which indicates that the effectiveness of the integration of the innovation model of higher education management and student training mechanism implementation is better in this college and university. Similarly, the mean of the total scale is 3.73 points slightly above the mean of 3, which indicates that the implementation of the innovation model in integrated universities contributes to the training of our students. The average score of the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of this integration innovation model in Y2 universities is 3.51, which is also 3 points higher than the average value, indicating that the overall implementation effect is good. However, in terms of the assessment scores of each indicator, the assessment scores of A23 “Behavioral Performance” (2.73) and B21 “Physical Fitness” (2.99) are lower than the average value by 3 points, which indicates that there is still room for improvement in the implementation of the model in teacher training colleges and universities. This indicates that there is still room for improvement in the implementation of the model in teacher training schools, and the innovative integration model can be adjusted according to the characteristics of the student training mechanism in such colleges and universities, so as to make it more suitable for the educational management and student training work in such colleges and universities.
Y1 college innovation model implementation effectiveness evaluation
| Secondary indicator | Assessment score | Tertiary index | Index number | Assessment score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ideological and political performance (A1) | 15.16 | Three-view performance | A11 | 4.2 |
| Social responsibility | A12 | 3.8 | ||
| Political loyalty | A13 | 3 | ||
| Communism ideal | A14 | 4.16 | ||
| Moral quality (A2) | 13.27 | Good judgment | A21 | 3.28 |
| Behavior performance | A22 | 3.41 | ||
| Honesty | A23 | 3.56 | ||
| Dedication | A24 | 3.02 | ||
| Comprehensive ability (B1) | 15.35 | Interpersonal communication and coordination | B11 | 4.93 |
| Planning organization capability | B12 | 3.21 | ||
| Verbal and verbal ability | B13 | 3 | ||
| Team ability | B14 | 4.21 | ||
| Comprehensive quality (B2) | 15.94 | Physical quality | B21 | 3.89 |
| Mental quality | B22 | 4.27 | ||
| professionalism | B23 | 3.65 | ||
| Humanistic and artistic cultivation | B24 | 4.13 |
Y2 college innovation model implementation effectiveness evaluation
| Secondary indicator | Assessment score | Tertiary index | Index number | Assessment score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ideological and political performance (A1) | 13.05 | Three-view performance | A11 | 2.7 |
| Social responsibility | A12 | 3.27 | ||
| Political loyalty | A13 | 3.21 | ||
| Communism ideal | A14 | 3.87 | ||
| Moral quality (A2) | 14.04 | Good judgment | A21 | 3.03 |
| Behavior performance | A22 | 3.95 | ||
| Honesty | A23 | 2.73 | ||
| Dedication | A24 | 4.33 | ||
| Comprehensive ability (B1) | 14.31 | Interpersonal communication and coordination | B11 | 3.21 |
| Planning organization capability | B12 | 3.5 | ||
| Verbal and verbal ability | B13 | 4.12 | ||
| Team ability | B14 | 3.48 | ||
| Comprehensive quality (B2) | 14.78 | Physical quality | B21 | 2.99 |
| Mental quality | B22 | 4.15 | ||
| professionalism | B23 | 4.36 | ||
| Humanistic and artistic cultivation | B24 | 3.28 |
The results of the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of innovative mechanisms for the integration of university education management and student training mechanisms in Y3 and Y4 colleges and universities are shown in Figure 3.The average scores of the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of the model in Y3 colleges and universities and Y4 colleges and universities are 3.15 and 4.33 respectively, which is higher than the average value of 3 points, but the gap is large. From the figure, it can be clearly found that in Y3 colleges and universities, the assessment indicators A11 “three views of performance”, A12 “social responsibility”, A13 “political loyalty”, B12 A12 “Social Responsibility”, A13 “Political Loyalty”, B12 “Interpersonal Communication and Coordination Ability” and B13 “Planning and Organizing Ability” scored much lower than 3 points. This shows that the innovative integration model has not paid attention to cultivating students’ ideological and political performance and comprehensive ability during the implementation process, and teachers need to further strengthen their efforts in guiding students to understand the knowledge and concept of ideology and politics and cultivating students’ awareness of ideology and politics. Ideological and political education should be reasonably emphasized in education management and student training, which is an important guarantee for the quality of the implementation of the innovative mode of integration of education management and student training. Therefore, it is more necessary to guide the cultivation of students’ correct values and comprehensive ability, so as to effectively play the role of the innovative integration model and avoid the model being “good but useless”.
Y3 and Y4 universities implement effectiveness assessment results
The questionnaire proposed above was used to collect the satisfaction of some students (592) in the tested colleges and universities on the implementation of the innovative model of integration of education management and student training mechanism in colleges and universities, and the results of the overall satisfaction analysis are shown in Fig. 4, in which D1-D4 represent the education management mode, curriculum, training system and training objectives, respectively. Taking the theoretical mean value of 3 as the reference value, the overall average satisfaction of the students of the four colleges and universities surveyed is 4.20 points, which is higher than the theoretical mean value of 3. Thus, it can be seen that the overall satisfaction level of the students of colleges and universities with the implementation of the model is relatively satisfactory. Among the four dimensions of the sub-assessment, the scores of the dimensions of curriculum (4.08 points), education management style (4.13 points) and cultivation system (4.65 points) are at a higher level, with the average scores above 4.0 points, which indicates that the students in the four colleges and universities under investigation are relatively satisfied with the education management style, curriculum and cultivation system of the implementation of the innovative integration model. However, the training goal of 3.95 points is in the last place, which indicates that the satisfaction level of college students with the training goal is average.In order to further prove whether there is any difference in the satisfaction of the training mode among students of different grades and GPAs, some tests and analyses were also conducted in this study.
Overall analysis of satisfaction
In order to find out whether there is a significant difference in the satisfaction of students in different grades on the innovation model of integration of higher education management and student training mechanism, ANOVA was conducted for freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors on the four dimensions of satisfaction with the implementation of the model, and the results are shown in Table 4. There is no difference between the samples of different grades in the overall training model (P=0.584>0.05). And there is also no significant difference between the samples of different grades for the four dimensions of training objectives (P=0.824>0.05), curriculum (P=0.849>0.05), education management style (P=0.503>0.05) and training system (P=0.337>0.05). That is, it shows that University C students’ satisfaction with the talent development system is affected by grade level, while it is not affected by grade level in terms of satisfaction with the dimensions of training objectives, curriculum and teaching methods.
Analysis of differences in students’ satisfaction in different grades
| Dimension | Education management | Course setting | Culture system | Culture target | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freshman year | Mean | 4.11 | 3.98 | 4.78 | 3.87 | 4.185 |
| SD | 0.85 | 0.52 | 0.49 | 0.36 | 0.44 | |
| Sophomore | Mean | 4.16 | 4.06 | 4.62 | 3.96 | 4.2 |
| SD | 0.44 | 0.38 | 0.76 | 0.3 | 0.65 | |
| Junior | Mean | 4.08 | 4.15 | 4.51 | 4.23 | 4.2425 |
| SD | 0.42 | 0.95 | 0.47 | 0.99 | 0.66 | |
| Senior year | Mean | 4.17 | 4.13 | 4.69 | 3.74 | 4.1825 |
| SD | 0.92 | 0.33 | 0.95 | 0.73 | 0.5 | |
| P | 0.503 | 0.849 | 0.337 | 0.824 | 0.584 | |
The results of the analysis of variance of students with different grades on their satisfaction with the implementation of the innovative model of integration of higher education management and student training mechanism are shown in Table 5. ANOVA analysis of the four dimensions of students’ satisfaction with the implementation of the model in different grades reveals that there is no difference between the samples of different grades in the overall satisfaction with the implementation of the innovative and integrated model (P=1.157>0.05), and there is no significant difference between the samples of different grades for the four dimensions of training objectives, curriculum, teaching methods and cultivation system (P-values are all greater than 0.05). This indicates that student satisfaction with the implementation of the innovative integration model in four different types of universities is not affected by student GPA, further confirming that the model can be widely implemented in different universities.
Analysis of differences in student satisfaction at different points of performance
| Dimension | Education management | Course setting | Culture system | Culture target | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <2.0 | Mean | 3.96 | 3.96 | 4.72 | 3.85 | 4.12 |
| SD | 0.32 | 0.61 | 0.71 | 0.45 | 0.36 | |
| 2.0-2.5 | Mean | 4.21 | 4.12 | 4.51 | 3.92 | 4.19 |
| SD | 0.67 | 0.36 | 0.56 | 0.79 | 0.42 | |
| 2.5-3.0 | Mean | 4.17 | 4.03 | 4.69 | 3.87 | 4.19 |
| SD | 0.88 | 0.38 | 0.52 | 0.31 | 0.46 | |
| 3.0-3.5 | Mean | 3.91 | 4.11 | 4.59 | 3.92 | 4.13 |
| SD | 0.41 | 0.44 | 0.92 | 0.86 | 0.86 | |
| >3.5 | Mean | 4.4 | 4.18 | 4.74 | 4.19 | 4.38 |
| SD | 0.9 | 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.69 | 0.69 | |
| P | 1.196 | 1.247 | 1.158 | 1.038 | 1.157 | |
This paper combines the work of educational management and student training mechanisms in colleges and universities, and aims to create an innovative fusion model of the two based on big data. The implementation effectiveness of the model in four different types of colleges and universities is analyzed, and it is found that the assessment scores of the implementation effectiveness of this fusion innovation model in four colleges and universities (3.73, 3.51, 3.15 and 4.33) are all higher than the average value of 3 points, indicating that the overall implementation effect is good. The results of the student satisfaction survey indicate that the overall status of university students’ satisfaction with the implementation of the model is at a relatively satisfactory level, with the scores of the dimensions of curriculum (4.08 points), education management style (4.13 points) and training system (4.65 points) at a high level. It is also found that there is no significant difference in the satisfaction level of students of different grades and performance points with the implementation of the innovative model of integration of higher education management and student training mechanism, which proves that the model is more widely applicable.
In conclusion, the use of the integration innovation model of higher education management and student training mechanism proposed in this paper has achieved the desired feedback results, and the feasibility and effectiveness of this model in various types of colleges and universities have been verified, laying a foundation for the effective development of higher education management and student training related work.
2021 Tianjin Educational Science Planning Project, General Project, Project Name: Research on Promoting Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law into Teaching Materials, Class and Mind, Project No.: CIE210158.
2019 Scientific Research Program of Tianjin Municipal Education Commission, 2019SK007, Research on Copyright Issues of AI Generated Content.