An Innovative Development Model of Open Education Teaching Management in Universities Based on WSR Methodology

With the development of Internet technology, open education, as a new type of teaching mode, is gradually becoming an important part of university education. With its flexible, convenient and open characteristics, open education has attracted more and more schools to participate in it, providing students with more learning opportunities and choices.

Open education is a kind of teaching mode based on Internet technology and education concept. It is based on the sharing and interaction of educational resources, and realizes the information exchange and interaction between teachers and students through the support of network and multimedia technology [1-4]. In open education, students can freely choose courses and learning contents, flexibly arrange learning time and learning progress, and get more comprehensive learning experience and knowledge accumulation through online discussion, interaction and feedback [5-6]. Open education teaching is characterized by resource sharing, flexibility, interactivity and openness. First of all, resource sharing means that the teaching resources of open education are open and shared, and students can freely access and utilize these resources on the network [7-9]. These resources include teaching materials, courseware, videos, audios and so on, which can be studied anytime and anywhere. Secondly, the learning mode of open education is very flexible, students can freely choose courses and learning contents, and flexibly arrange learning time and learning progress [10-11]. This flexibility can not only meet the learning needs of students, but also make learning more independent and self-management. Furthermore, open education teaching is web-based, and students can communicate and cooperate with teachers and other students through online discussions, interactions and feedback [12-13]. This interactivity enhances students’ learning engagement and motivation and helps them to better understand and master their knowledge. Finally, because the network is learning and teaching, open education teaching is open, not only the open sharing of educational resources, but also the teaching content is open [14-16].

The open education teaching management model not only helps to improve the quality of education in China, but also stimulates the enthusiasm and creativity of all students. To this end, we need to strengthen the reform of education and teaching, focusing on cultivating students’ innovative ability and practical ability; strengthen the construction of teaching staff, improve the professionalism and teaching ability of teachers; and strengthen international cooperation, drawing on international advanced education concepts and methods [17-19]. However, open means uncontrollable, which includes students’ independent learning, teaching methods, school teaching management is not controllable. For this reason, there is a need to update the teaching management of open education in colleges and universities. And the Physical (Wuli)-Shari (Shili)-Renli (abbreviated as WSR) methodology can be a good way to synthesize and analyze such a complex problem involving tripartite dimensions [20-22].

Firstly, the teaching management model of open education in colleges and universities is established according to the WSR theory, and the evaluation index system of teaching management ability of open education in colleges and universities with 3 first-level indexes and 11 second-level indexes is constructed. Then the G1 method is used to determine the subjective weight of each evaluation index, the CRITIC method is used to determine the objective weight, and the evaluation model of open education teaching management in colleges and universities is established by combining the cloud model theory. Finally, the T-test analysis is used to compare the colleges and universities that adopt the college education quality management system based on the WSR open education teaching management model and the traditional teaching management model.

2

WSR methodology for innovative open education teaching management models

2.1

WSR Methodology

WSR methodology, which is guided by the philosophical view of the East, contains philosophical, cultural, socio-political, economic and other characteristics unique to the East, which is both a methodology and a powerful means of solving complex problems [23]. The methodology is based on the three parts of Wu Li, Shi Li and Ren Li, which can analyze the laws of the objective material world, the mechanism of things and the relationship between people, and the main content of the WSR methodology is shown in Table 1. The theory is able to organize and hierarchize the research content, while better elucidating the intrinsic connection between each element, coordinating the relationship between physics, matter and human mechanism, and forming a dynamic balance, which is characterized by stage, logic and systematicity.

Table 1.

Main contents of the WSR methodology

Name	Meaning	Core problem	Compliance criterion	Purpose
Physics	The law of the world of objective error(Define the nature of things)	What is it	True and reliable	Natural science	Sanity
Reason	(Effective handling of transactions)Human relationship	How to do	Effective and reasonable	Teaching engineering	Rational reasoning
Hermit	Human relationship(Consider the factors of people)	What should be done	Cooperation and fairness	Management science, Social science	General understanding

It can be seen that there is an interaction between physics, affairs, and human affairs, and the integrity of the system cannot be guaranteed without one element. The main process of the WSR methodology is shown in Figure 1, which contains a total of 6 processes, which can be dynamically adjusted between each process, among which, the “coordination relationship” runs through the whole process as an element, and coordinates the relationship between physics, affairs and human affairs at each stage, so that the whole model is in a dynamic balance.

2.2

WSR methodology to innovate the teaching management model of open education

With the continuous expansion of the national public service field, more system theory is needed to guide, WSR used in public management system has engineering management, site management, energy management and other successful practices, open education teaching management in colleges and universities, as one of the most important public management programs in schools, its use of WSR system methodology to guide the work carried out is necessary and feasible. WSR system methodology is applied to analyze the complex system of open education teaching management, and Figure 2 shows the analysis process.

2.2.1

Principles of innovative open education teaching management

Applying WSR system methodology to the teaching management of open education in colleges and universities to build a new management model is mainly to better serve teachers and students, improve the management and service level of the school, enhance the image of the school, reduce the school’s investment in teaching and learning security, and concentrate more energy and resources into teaching and research. To comply with the following 3 principles: 1)

Compliance of rules and regulations with national laws and regulations is the first principle

All the socialization reforms are to better support the school’s academic construction, provide a higher standard of service guarantee, so that teachers and students in the campus life and learning more convenient and comfortable, but also in line with the school’s relevant rules and regulations, can not be carried out on the pretext of innovation to engage in illegal activities.

2)

Let the open education teaching system to better serve teachers and students is the fundamental principle

When reducing the economic pressure on universities in open education teaching management, it is necessary to take into account the welfare and economy. Through the introduction of socialization reforms, the introduction of social tertiary industry as a third party to provide services for teachers and students in schools, not at the expense of the interests of teachers and students to obtain the maximum economic benefits.

3)

Maximizing the interests of each participant in the entire open education teaching management system is an important principle

For the Open Education Teaching Management Department and administrators at School Open Education, the most basic motive is to exchange the best quality service for a relatively low price. Apply the WSR system methodology to balance the interests of all parties, come up with a management plan acceptable to all parties, and build a new model of scientific and reasonable management. Maintain a stable cooperative relationship and strengthen the close ties between the school and the third-party company.

2.2.2

Innovative open education teaching and management conditions

If the new model of open education teaching management based on WSR system methodology is to be successfully promoted, at least the following three conditions need to be met. 1)

There should be national-level policy guidance and a sound legal system. Sound laws can clarify the rights and obligations of all parties involved in the socialization process of open education teaching management, safeguard the interests of all parties, make all parties clear where the risk points are, define the responsibilities and risks, try to avoid the occurrence of large risky accidents, and in the event of disputes and accidents, they can also be held accountable in accordance with the law.

2)

There should be policy support from relevant government departments at all levels. The new model of open education teaching management based on WSR system methodology comes from the modular management experience in social governance, the government as the largest and most basic public service provider, when more and more third-party companies are involved in open education teaching management in universities, it is more important to have the policy guidance of the government, weigh the interests of all parties, and do a good job of risk management and control, and the advanced modular management experience in social governance and community can provide a reference for the Advanced social governance and community modularization management experience can provide reference for colleges and universities.

3)

Multiple subjects in the open education teaching management system should cooperate to form a synergy. The new model of open education teaching management based on the WSR system methodology requires the school management, third-party companies, and the audience (teachers and students) to cooperate and support each other, and to think about better management through the three levels of physical, physical, and human factors.

2.3

Construction of a new model of teaching management in colleges and universities based on WSR

2.3.1

Dimensional division of the new model of open education teaching management

According to the WSR system methodology, the university open education teaching management system can be divided into three sub-levels: the physical level is mainly related to grass-roots facilities and equipment, the factual level is mainly related to rules and regulations, and the humanistic level is mainly about interpersonal coordination. Facilities and equipment system includes: property area, environmental resources, building conditions, various types of facilities and equipment in the university, etc. On the physical level, it promotes the further improvement and construction of various types of facilities and equipment, and provides teachers and students with more advanced and complete protection services. Regulatory system includes: all kinds of rules and regulations, guiding policy documents, management methods, operation system, etc., which constantly optimize the operation mechanism and management system at the factual level, prompting the management efficiency and service level. The interpersonal coordination system includes the coordination and processing among managers, service providers and service recipients, strengthening the communication and contact with all parties at the humanistic level, focusing on the feedback and processing tracking of problems, and improving the satisfaction of teachers and students.

2.3.2

Tasks and processes of the new model

Based on the WSR system methodology, the task of managing teaching and learning in open education was refined into seven steps: 1)

Clarification of the problem Comprehensively understand the meaning and role of open education teaching management, study the development process and historical trend of open education teaching management through data collection and study and work experience accumulation, discover the problems existing in open education teaching management and analyze them in depth, so as to provide basic theories and reliable bases for the research of the innovation of open education teaching management mode.

2)

Goal-setting Through sufficient research to understand the actual needs of teachers and students for logistic support services, formulate realistic and practicable goals for open education teaching management, with corresponding strict evaluation standards, to ensure that the specified goals can be realized as scheduled.

3)

Investigation and analysis Investigate the situation related to the teaching management of open education in colleges and universities, master the knowledge related to the teaching management of open education, and understand the status quo of the teaching management of open education in other colleges and universities, the management system, the situation of the personnel team, the situation of the financial investment and the operation system.

4)

Constructive Strategies Based on the conclusions drawn in the previous step, methods, paths, and measures to innovate the teaching management model of open education are formulated in accordance with the needs of open education teaching management, and a number of effective implementation plans are drawn up.

5)

Options In-depth analysis of multiple preliminary scenarios generated in the previous step, through modeling, simulation runs, and references to the management experience of other universities, in terms of management objectives, solutions to problems, and final results achieved.

6)

Realization of the concept In order to promote the implementation of the final program, it is also necessary to solve the problems encountered in the follow-up process, in accordance with the size of the problem to make appropriate adjustments and further refinement, if the encounter is a small problem to make small corrections, if it is found that the program really has a lot of problems to the extent that it is impossible to continue to implement the program, then it is necessary to reanalyze the problem, and to make a separate decision.

7)

Harmonization Coordination of the relationship is throughout the entire scope of open education teaching management work, focusing on the coordination of school logistics personnel, the majority of teachers and students and third-party enterprise employees, effective communication must be carried out in order to ensure that teachers and students are satisfied with the results achieved by the open education teaching management, and to promote the improvement of the efficiency of management and the level of service.

The imperative of socialization of open education teaching management in colleges and universities, the application of WSR system approach, combined with the requirements of the law of open education teaching management, can be redesigned to open education teaching management process design is divided into: socialization of the pre-preparation stage, the management process stage and feedback to enhance the stage of the three parts of the three phases of the new management of open education teaching management in colleges and universities, as shown in Figure 3.

2.3.3

Multi-subject relationship in the new model of open education teaching management

In the WSR theory of open education teaching management, there are multiple subjects in the complex system of open education teaching management, among which the “manager” is the open education teaching management department, the “service provider” is a third-party professional company, and the “service audience” is the majority of teachers and students. Of course, there may be some cross- and intersecting relationships between these three, and universities may also introduce third-party evaluators.

Schools provide various infrastructure facilities, as well as a stable flow of funds back to the third-party professional company, which introduces hit professional equipment, talent, and the latest technology to the school. In this general direction of student socialization reform, based on the WSR system methodology to further refine the management model, through the physical matter of human nature three levels, and pay more attention to the human nature level, by the teachers and students to put forward the needs of the school and the third-party professional company to design the management objectives to provide the basis, and to further enhance the school of open education teaching and learning management in the physical level of the construction.

3

Evaluation model of open education teaching management in universities based on WSR

3.1

Evaluation index system for teaching management of open education in higher education institutions

Constructing the evaluation index system of teaching management of open education in colleges and universities, based on the open education system, combining the relevant theories to determine the first-level evaluation indexes, and screening the second-level indexes with the relevant research. The evaluation index system is shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Open education teaching management evaluation index system

Primary indicator	Secondary indicator
Physics	Facilities
	Preparation
	Management content
	Teaching project
Reason	Management degree
	Management mechanism
	Management service content
Hermit	Relationship coordination
	Personal quality
	Learning satisfaction
	Management concept

3.2

Determination of evaluation indicator weights

3.2.1

G1 method for determining subjective weight calculation process

Gl method subjective weight determination calculation steps: 1)

Determine the relationship between the sequence of indicators to be evaluated

With the help of experts in the identified security risk indicators in {A₁, A₂, …, A_n}, select the most important indicators recorded as A₁; then in the remaining n − 1 indicators continue to select the most important indicators recorded as A₂; this method until the marking of A_n indicators, thus obtaining the importance of the indicators ranked: A₁ > A₂ > ⋯ > A_n.

2)

Judging the importance of neighboring indicators

Assuming that the ratio of the importance of neighboring indicators is r_k, the formula for calculating r_k is as follows: (1) $r_{k} = \frac{A_{k - 1}}{A_{k}} (k = 1, 2, ..., n)$

In the formula, A_k and A_k−1 are the weights of the krd indicator and the k − 1th indicator. 3)

Calculation of indicator weights

By assigning the importance r_k between neighboring indicators by experts, the weight A_k of the nth indicator is calculated by the formula: (2) $A_{k} = {[1 + \sum_{k = 2}^{n} \prod_{i = k}^{n} r_{i}]}^{- 1}$

Then from the weights of A_k the weights of the indicators of n − l, n − 2, …, 2, 1 can be calculated with the formula: (3) $A_{k - 1} = A_{k} \times r_{k} (k = 1, 2, ..., n - 1, n)$ 4)

Calculation of weights of secondary indicators

The calculation of the weights of the secondary indicators is the same as the above process of calculating the weights of the primary indicators, only the experts need to assign values to each secondary indicator r_k, and repeat the above operation to calculate the weights of all secondary indicators.

3.2.2

Calculation process for determining objective weights by the CRITIC method

CRITIC method objective weight determination calculation steps: 1)

Construct the evaluation index set

Assuming that the evaluation of teaching management of open education in colleges and universities has m evaluation subject with n evaluation indicators, the ird rating subject of the jth of the indicators is represented by x_ij, from which the evaluation matrix can be constructed: (4) $X = [\begin{matrix} x_{11} & \dots & x_{1 n} \\ ⋮ & ⋱ & ⋮ \\ x_{m 1} & \dots & x_{m n} \end{matrix}]$

2)

Dimensionless processing of the evaluation matrix

Because the above indicator system involves different dimensions, the main body, the indicators in the unit, the order of magnitude and other aspects of the existence of large differences, so the evaluation matrix of the indicators in the data for the standardization of data dimensionless processing to obtain the standardized matrix X^*, Xun valence matrix standardized processing formula, the positive indicators of the dimensionless processing of the formula (5), the negative indicators of the dimensionless processing of the formula (6). (5) $x_{i j}^{*} = \frac{x_{i j} - \min_{i} x_{i j}}{\max_{i} x_{i j} - \min_{i} x_{i j}}$ (6) $x_{i j}^{*} = \frac{\max_{i} x_{i j} - x_{i j}}{\max_{i} x_{i j} - \min_{i} x_{i j}}$

The formula min_i x_ij, max_i x_ij is the maximum and minimum values of the ind row and jrd column of the evaluation matrix, respectively. 3)

Calculation of indicator variability

CRITIC method indicator variability is expressed by the standard deviation, the larger the standard deviation indicates that the greater the difference in the value of the indicator, the more information is released. (7) ${\bar{x}}_{j} = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i = 1}^{m} x_{i j} (i = 1, 2, ..., m; j = 1, 2, ..., n)$ (8) $S_{j} = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{m} {(x_{i j} - {\bar{x}}_{j})}^{2}}{m - 1}} (i = 1, 2, ..., m; j = 1, 2, ..., n)$ (9) $V_{j} = \frac{S_{j}}{\bar{x_{j}}} (j = 1, 2, ..., n)$

${\bar{x}}_{j}$ represents the mean of the jnd indicator in the evaluation matrix, S_j represents the standard deviation of the jth indicator, and V_j is the coefficient of variation of the jth indicator. 4)

Indicator conflict and information calculation

Indicator conflict with the linear correlation coefficient, the larger the coefficient is, the smaller the conflict with other indicators, the more its evaluation content and other indicators to evaluate the content of the repetition, should be appropriate to reduce the weight of the indicator, the calculation formula as (10): (10) $R_{j} = \sum_{i = 1}^{n} (1 - r_{i j}) (i = 1, 2, ..., m; j = 1, 2, ..., n)$

The amount of information is denoted by C_j. The larger the C_j, the more information it contains, the greater the effect on the evaluation matrix, and the more weight should be given to it. C_j The calculation formula is shown in (11): (11) $C_{j} = V_{j} \times R_{j} \times S_{j} (j = 1, 2, ..., n)$ 5)

Calculation of indicator weights

After the above formula can be calculated to know the evaluation matrix in the jst indicator weight w_j calculation formula, such as (12): (12) $w_{j} = \frac{C_{j}}{\sum_{j = 1}^{n} C_{j}} (j = 1, 2, ..., n)$

3.2.3

G1-CRITIC method of portfolio weight determination

The accuracy of the assessment of open education teaching management is closely related to the weights of the indicators, in order to make the assessment results more in line with the reality. This paper uses the preference coefficient tool for linear weighting to determine the combination of weights, then the combination of weights W_z calculation formula is: (13) $W_{z} = α w_{m a i n} + (1 - α) w_{g u e s t}$

Formula α is a linear weighting coefficient with a value range of (0-1). Usually, the value of α is 0.5, so that the subjective and objective weights are half each, and this design can make the weights of the indicators more reasonable.

3.3

Evaluation model of open education management based on cloud modeling

3.3.1

Basic model concepts

The cloud model has three numerical features of expectation value (E_x), entropy (E_n) and superentropy (H_e). Expectation value represents the coordinates of qualitative concepts, reflecting the cloud center of gravity of the cloud droplet group; entropy represents the uncertainty and ambiguity of the cloud droplet distribution; superentropy measures the uncertainty of entropy, the larger the superentropy, the larger the thickness of the cloud [24]. The cloud generator is a cattle formation algorithm for cloud modeling, including two kinds of cloud generator, forward cloud generator and inverse cloud generator, the forward cloud generator is used to generate cloud droplets, and the inverse generator is used to compute the cloud numerical features, as shown in Fig. 4. Input E_x, E_n, H_e and the number of cloud droplets N into the forward cloud generator to generate cloud droplets, which realizes the conversion from qualitative to quantitative; input cloud droplets into the inverse cloud generator to get cloud eigenvalues E_x, E_n, H_e, which realizes the conversion from quantitative to qualitative [25].

3.3.2

Cloud Model Evaluation Process

1)

Determine the standard cloud

Divide the risk level interval, calculate the standard cloud characteristic parameters of each level by using equations (14) to (16), and generate the standard cloud of each evaluation index by using forward cloud generator through Matlab, and draw the standard cloud diagram.

(14)

E_{x} = \frac{x_{max} + x_{min}}{2}

(15)

E_{n} = \frac{x_{\max} - x_{\min}}{6}

(16)

H_{e} = f

Where x_max is the maximum value in the set of rubrics; x_min is the minimum value in the set of rubrics; and f is a constant, taking the value of 0.5. 2)

Determine the evaluation cloud

The characteristic parameters of the cloud droplet can be obtained by inputting cloud droplet v in the inverse cloud generator. The inverse cloud generator calculation is shown in Eqs. (17) ~ (19). (17) $E_{x} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} v_{i}$ (18) $E_{n} = \sqrt{\frac{π}{2}} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} | v_{i} - E_{x} |$ (19) $H_{e} = \sqrt{S^{2} - E_{n}^{2}} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{n - 1} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} {(v_{i} - \bar{v})}^{2} - E_{n}^{2}}$

where S² is the variance.

3)

Comprehensive evaluation cloud

The evaluation cloud and the combination weights are substituted into Eqs. (20)~(22) to calculate the comprehensive evaluation cloud of the fire risk level of the lithium battery storage power station. Using Matlab software, the standard cloud and the comprehensive evaluation cloud are drawn in the same coordinate system, and the risk level of the evaluation object is determined by comparing the differences between the two in position and shape. (20) $E_{x} = W_{1} E_{x_{1}} + W_{2} E_{x_{2}} + \dots + W_{i} E_{x_{i}}$ (21) $E_{n} = \sqrt{W_{1}^{2} E_{n_{1}}^{2} + W_{2}^{2} E_{n 2}^{2} + \dots + W_{i}^{2} E_{n_{i}}^{2}}$ (22) $H_{e} = \sqrt{W_{1}^{2} H_{e_{1}}^{2} + W_{2}^{2} H_{e_{2}}^{2} + \dots + W_{i}^{2} H_{e_{i}}^{2}}$

4

Innovative management of teaching and learning in open education in higher education under WSR

4.1

Empirical evidence of evaluation of teaching innovation management in open education in higher education institutions

4.1.1

Case Objects

Students of the class of 2022 from a university in Shanghai were selected for a semester-long empirical evaluation of management using the open education teaching innovation management model proposed in this paper, and a questionnaire survey was taken to obtain the results of the survey.

4.1.2

Determination of indicator weights

A total of five experts and scholars from education authorities, education industry and universities were invited to rank the importance of indicators, and the subjective weight ω1 and objective weight ω2 were calculated by using the G1 method and the improved CRITIC method respectively, and the combined weights were obtained by combining the games of ω1 and ω2 according to the formula. The calculation results are shown in Table 3. From the calculation results in the table, it can be seen that the weight value of the first-level indicator “humane” is the largest, 0.4321, which is the most influential indicator.

Table 3.

The combination weights of each index

Primary indicator	Subjective weightω1	Objective weightω2	Composite weightW	Secondary indicator	Subjective weightω1	Objective weightω2	Composite weightW
Physics	0.2457	0.2382	0.2391	Facilities	0.3478	0.3741	0.3551
				Preparation	0.2951	0.2814	0.2681
				Management content	0.2115	0.1984	0.2256
				Teaching project	0.1456	0.1461	0.1512
Reason	0.4321	0.4767	0.4584	Management degree	0.4582	0.3678	0.2961
				Management mechanism	0.3579	0.3876	0.4722
				Management service content	0.1839	0.2446	0.2317
Hermit	0.3222	0.2851	0.3025	Relationship coordination	0.3562	0.3157	0.2875
				Personal quality	0.2677	0.2591	0.3153
				Learning satisfaction	0.1941	0.2378	0.1877
				Management concept	0.182	0.1894	0.2095

4.1.3

Identification of standardized clouds

According to the results of the questionnaire survey and expert scoring, combined with the actual situation of the university, the evaluation level of the teaching management ability of the whole process of the university is divided into five levels, and the scoring value is set to [0, 10], and the evaluation level is shown in Table 4. After dividing the comment set, the feature parameter values of the cloud model are calculated by the formula, and then the standard cloud diagram is generated by using the forward cloud generator, as shown in Figure 5.

Table 4.

The teaching management evaluates the standard cloud parameters

Capacity rating	Interval division	Standard cloud parameter
Initial stage L₁	[0,2)	(1,0.333,0.05)
Growth stage L₂	[2,4)	(1,0.333,0.05)
Improvement phase L₃	[4,6)	(1,0.333,0.05)
Mature phase L₄	[6,8)	(1,0.333,0.05)
Optimization phase L₅	[8,10]	(1,0.333,0.05)

4.1.4

Calculation of the evaluation indicator cloud and synthesis cloud

Invite 10 experts (2 experts from educational authorities, 3 associate professors from colleges and universities, 5 senior teachers engaged in the education industry) to quantitatively score each evaluation index based on the actual situation of colleges and universities and the evaluation standard of the index system, input the results of the scores of the experts and scholars into the inverse cloud generator, and get the evaluation cloud of each level 2 index through calculation, and substitute each level 2 index cloud parameter and weight into Eq. The evaluation clouds for each first-level index are obtained, and the results are shown in Table 5.

Table 5.

The education management model evaluates cloud parameters

Primary indicator	Evaluation cloud parameter	Secondary indicator	Evaluation cloud parameter
Physics	(07.24,0.214,0.108)	Facilities	(4.71,0.386,0.109)
		Preparation	(7.57,0.182,0.179)
		Management content	(8.92,0.221,0.061)
		Teaching project	(5.65,0.181,0.392)
Reason	(8.21,0.0575,0.114)	Management degree	(5.67,0.397,0.273)
		Management mechanism	(8.27,0.292,0.089)
		Management service content	(8.76,0.454,0.011)
Hermit	(8.81,0.362,0.162)	Relationship coordination	(7.73,0.224,0.071)
		Personal quality	(8.24,0.452,0.214)
		Learning satisfaction	(7.89,0.316,0.457)
		Management concept	(8.11,0.198,0.013)

From the cloud parameters and weighting formula of the first-level indicators, the numerical characteristics of the comprehensive cloud for evaluation of teaching management of open education in universities are calculated as Ex=8.14, En=0.392, He=0.132. From the analysis of the reliability of the evaluation results, since the entropy En of the evaluated composite cloud is 0.392 and the superentropy He is 0.132; the maximum value of the entropy En of the secondary indicator layer is 0.454 and the maximum value of the superentropy He is 0.457, which are lower values, it shows that the evaluation results of the cloud model have a certain degree of stability and reliability.

4.1.5

Determining the level of open education teaching management

In order to determine the whole process of teaching management level in colleges and universities, using each level of indicators and comprehensive cloud parameters, based on the forward cloud generator on Matlab, the comprehensive cloud and the physical, matter, human layer evaluation cloud and the standard cloud are plotted into the coordinate system, as shown in Fig. (6) ~ Fig. (9). Using the cloud similarity method to calculate the similarity between the comprehensive cloud and each standard cloud level, the calculation results are shown in Table 6, which shows that the similarity between the comprehensive cloud and the standard cloud in the maturity stage is 0.3451, so it can be determined that the teaching management capability of open education in universities is in the “maturity stage”, and the evaluation results are generally in line with the situation of teaching management in universities, indicating that the evaluation results constructed by the evaluation cloud are in the “maturity stage”. The evaluation results are generally in line with the teaching management situation in open education in colleges and universities, indicating that the evaluation model constructed has strong practicability.

Table 6.

Open education teaching management cloud similarity

Capacity rating	L₁	L₂	L₃	L₄	L₅
Similarity	6.9E-48	1.28E-14	2.05E-02	0.3451	0.014

4.2

Validation of the effectiveness of innovation management

The analysis of the effectiveness of the constructed college open education teaching management model is mainly to examine the effectiveness of the model relative to traditional management methods. Whether the based open education management model of higher education is superior to the traditional education management to verify the effectiveness of the WSR-based open education teaching and management model of higher education, the first category of institutions adopts the open education teaching and management model based on WSR, while the second category of institutions use the traditional education management model.

4.2.1

Acquisition of Sample Data

In the survey, 40 higher education institutions were analyzed. Due to the scarcity of data, the researcher analyzed the data by simulating it as that of colleges and universities using the data simulation method. The assessment scores were uniformly converted to a 0-5 rating, with 5 indicating full compliance with the indicators and 0 indicating complete non-compliance with the indicators, with larger values indicating a higher degree of compliance with the indicators.

Through data simulation, we obtained 40 samples, each with two sets of data before and after the use of the WSR-based teaching management model of open education in universities, forming pairs of paired samples. This pair of paired samples is analyzed in depth below to find out whether there is a significant improvement in the level of education quality management in higher education institutions after adopting the new education management model.

4.2.2

Comparison of Weighted Means

The mean value of each indicator score in the sample of 40 Category 1 colleges and universities was calculated to form the ratings of the indicators at all levels of the colleges and universities. Similarly, the mean value of each index score of each sample of colleges and universities is calculated to form the scores of all levels of indicators of the second category of colleges and universities, as shown in Table 7 and Table 8.

Table 7.

Two schools, education management level index rating

Primary indicator	weighting	Secondary indicator	weighting	Class of colleges and universities	Secondary school
Physics	0.412	Facilities	0.0078	4.2	3.5
		Preparation	0.2123	4.5	3.0
		Management content	0.0577	4.3	3.4
		Teaching project	0.1342	3.5	3.8
Reason	0.359	Management degree	0.0178	2.4	3.1
		Management mechanism	0.2453	4.5	3.5
		Management service content	0.0959	4.0	3.6
Hermit	0.229	Relationship coordination	0.0561	4.1	3.2
		Personal quality	0.1153	4.0	3.5
		Learning satisfaction	0.0245	4.5	3.8
		Management concept	0.0331	4.2	3.1

Table 8.

Two schools, education management level grade one index score

Primary indicator	Weighting	Class of colleges and universities(W1a)	Secondary school(W1b)
Physics	0.412	4.13	3.64
Reason	0.359	3.72	3.52
Hermit	0.229	4.08	3.41
The weighted assessment of the two schools is the average score		4.0	3.5

As Table 7 and Table 8 are calculated, due to the large number of survey samples, it is not possible to compare them one by one, so our whole validation process is carried out at the first level of indicators, and the four first-level indicators are used as the four factors of evaluation. Through the calculation, we can see that the weighted average score of competitiveness of first-class institutions is 4.0 points, and the weighted average score of competitiveness of second-class institutions is 3.5 points. In all three areas, Physical, Matters, and Human Factors, Category 1 institutions are superior to Category 2 institutions. Although the final score of the weighted average is higher for Category 1 institutions than Category 2 institutions, an intervention paired test is required to prove that all aspects of the educational standards of colleges and universities are significantly better than those of ordinary higher education institutions under the open education management model of colleges and universities based on WSR.

For the convenience of calculation, the scores of the two types of faculties were compared at the first level of indicators, forming a table as in Table 8.

4.2.3

Paired t-tests

Next, the data was subjected to a paired T test, and a paired T test was used to calculate a comparison of the differences between the weighted means of the two types of institutions on the tertiary indicators, which first required the calculation of a t3 value: (23) $T = \frac{{\bar{S}}_{1} - {\bar{S}}_{2}}{s_{d} / \sqrt{n}}$

Where ${\bar{S}}_{1}$ represents the mean of the scores of the first category institutions, ${\bar{S}}_{2}$ represents the mean of the scores of the second category institutions, s_d represents the variance, and n is the sample size, which is 40.

The calculation of the T-value entails dividing the difference between the means of the two by the estimated standard deviation of the data, which is what the above formula expresses. The T value is able to express the value of the difference between the two means, and the P value can be obtained by comparing this difference with different levels of significance. The P value is the level of significance of this difference. 1)

Paired-sample statistics

The results of the paired sample statistics are shown in Table 9. The table shows from left to right the mean, sample size, standard deviation, and standard error of the paired samples.

2)

Composite score test for both types of institutions

By calculating t=4.55, further analysis of the significance of this value reveals that p=0.0081<0.01, and since p<0.01, there is more than 99% reason to believe that there is a difference between the two. Moreover, the composite score for Category 1 institutions was 4.0 and for Category 2 institutions it was 3.9.Thus, it can be concluded that, overall, the quality assessment results for Category 1 institutions are significantly higher than those for Category 2 institutions.

3)

Scoring test of the first-level indicators of the two types of institutions

In order to examine more deeply whether there are significant differences between the two types of institutions in the four aspects of teaching management responsibilities, teaching resource management, teaching realization process, and monitoring and improvement at the level of the first-level indicators, the first-level indicator test was conducted.

The table shows from left to right the difference between the means of the two strategies before and after, the standard deviation, the standard error, and the confidence interval of the difference, and the results of the paired samples test are shown in Table 10. From the test, it can be seen that t=-5.8, p<0.05 for physical, t=-2.143, p<0.05 for matter of fact, and t=-2.137, p<0.05 for humanistic. The p-value of the above three elements is much smaller than the test level of 0.05, and the results of the second type of institutions in the sample, and the results of the first type of institutions are negative, so it can be concluded that the teaching management model of open education in colleges and universities based on the WSR is conducive to the improvement of the quality of education in colleges and universities, and in the three aspects of the physical, factual, and humane is very significant.

Table 9.

Matched sample statistics

		Mean	N	Std Deviation	Std Eror Mean
Pair1	Physics 1	4.16	40	.99612	.06814
Pair1	Physics 2	3.65	40	.67567	.03622
Pair2	Reason 1	3.71	40	.84723	.05763
Pair2	Reason 2	3.52	40	.76774	.04922
Pair3	Hermit 1	4.06	40	1.32161	.06813
Pair3	Hermit 2	3.73	40	.84551	.063332

Table 10.

Matched sample

		Paired Differenes					t	df	Sig
		Mean	Std.Deviation	Std.Error Mean	95%Confidence Interval of the Difference
					Lower	Upper
Pair1	Physics 1	-.535	1.21	.07576	-.6041	-.2976	-5.8**	40	.009
Pair1	Physics 2	-.535	1.21	.07576	-.6041	-.2976	-5.8**	40	.009
Pair2	Reason 1	-.208	1.04	.08121	-.3013	-.0452	-2.143	40	.029
Pair2	Reason 2	-.208	1.04	.08121	-.3013	-.0452	-2.143	40	.029
Pair3	Hermit 1	-.455	1.36	.08667	-.8115	-.369	-2.137	40	.576
Pair3	Hermit 2	-.455	1.36	.08667	-.8115	-.369	-2.137	40	.576

5

Conclusion

1)

This paper firstly creates the teaching management innovation model of college open education based on WER, and establishes the evaluation index system of college open education teaching management including 3 first-level indexes of physical, matter, and human, and 12 second-level indexes in combination with related research.

2)

Based on the theory of GI-CRITIC combination empowerment and cloud model, the evaluation model of teaching management of open education in colleges and universities is constructed. According to the evaluation results, it can be seen that the maximum similarity is 0.3451, and the open education teaching management ability of colleges and universities is in the mature stage, indicating that the validity and feasibility of the model can be verified.

3)

Through the t-test of the comprehensive score of the two types of institutions, it can be found that the education quality level of the first type of institutions is significantly higher than that of the second type of institutions, which also indicates that the use of open education teaching management model based on WSR for university education management can effectively improve the level of university education quality management.

Język:: Angielski

Częstotliwość wydawania:: 1 razy w roku
Dziedziny czasopisma:: Nauki biologiczne, Nauki biologiczne, inne, Matematyka, Matematyka stosowana, Matematyka ogólna, Fizyka, Fizyka, inne

Kanał RSS czasopisma

An Innovative Development Model of Open Education Teaching Management in Universities Based on WSR Methodology

Ling Zhu

Data publikacji: 21 mar 2025

Otrzymano: 16 paź 2024

Przyjęty: 07 lut 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0669

Słowa kluczoweCRITIC method, WSR methodology, Cloud model, Open education

© 2025 Ling Zhu, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Słowa kluczowe
CRITIC method, WSR methodology, Cloud model, Open education