The construction of evaluation system of ideological and political education effect assisted by deep learning

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Advisory Group members

ID	Gender	Educational background	Job title	Teaching years
Experts 1	Female	Doctor	Senior	26-30
Experts 2	Male	Doctor	Deputy senior	16-20
Experts 3	Female	Doctor	Senior	31-40
Experts 4	Female	Doctor	Deputy senior	26-30
Experts 5	Male	Doctor	Deputy senior	21-25
Experts 6	Female	Master	Senior	16-20
Experts 7	Male	Doctor	Deputy senior	11-15
Experts 8	Female	Master	Primary	0-10
Experts 9	Female	Master	Deputy senior	16-20
Experts 10	Male	Doctor	Intermediate	11-15
Experts 11	Female	Doctor	Deputy senior	26-30
Experts 12	Male	Master	Primary	0-10

Evaluation index system (Preliminary draft)

Primary index	Secondary index	Three-level index
Ideological and political education background evaluation /A	Requirements Analysis /A1	Students need /A11
		The school needs /A12
		Social needs /A13
	Ideological and political Foundation /A2	Discipline construction /A21
		Campus culture /A22
		Research environment /A23
Evaluation of ideological and political education input /B	Teaching staff /B1	Moral cultivation/ B11
		Teaching performance /B12
		Responsibility awareness /B13
	Investment /B2	Scientific research funds /B21
		Textbook development /B22
		Facilities and equipment /B23
	Organizational Assurance /B3	Team building /B31
		Regulations /B32
		Management services /B33
Evaluation of ideological and political implementation /C	Planning and Design /C1	The curriculum /C11
		Curriculum system /C12
	Teaching process /C2	Teaching content /C21
		Teaching method /C22
		Classroom supervision /C23
	Course Assessment /C3	Assessment content /C31
		Assessment method /C32
Evaluation of implementation effect of ideological and political education /D	Direct effects /D1	Student satisfaction /D11
		Student literacy /D12
	Course impact /D2	Professionalism /D21
		Professional Practice /D22

Importance ratio and meaning of judgment matrix

Scale	Implication
1	Indicator X has the same importance as indicator Y
3	Indicator X is slightly more important than indicator Y
5	Indicator X is more important than indicator Y
7	Indicator X is significantly more important than indicator Y
9	Indicator X is absolutely more important than indicator Y
2, 4, 6, 8	The importance of index X is between the two adjacent levels
Count backwards	The importance of indicator Y over indicator X

Weight values of first-level indicators

Index level	Weight
Ideological and political education background evaluation /A	0.2517
Evaluation of ideological and political education input /B	0.1589
Evaluation of ideological and political implementation /C	0.2337
Evaluation of implementation effect of ideological and political education /D	0.3557

The index weight of the evaluation system

Primary index		Secondary index		Three-level index		Composite weight
Index	Weight	Index	Weight	Index	Weight
A	0.2517	A1	0.6584	A11	0.5352	0.0887
				A12	0.1994	0.0330
				A13	0.2654	0.0440
		A2	0.3416	A21	0.6021	0.0518
				A22	0.2028	0.0174
				A23	0.1951	0.0168
B	0.1589	B1	0.6276	B11	0.2796	0.0279
				B12	0.1963	0.0196
				B13	0.5241	0.0523
		B2	0.2198	B21	0.5553	0.0194
				B22	0.2447	0.0085
				B23	0.2000	0.0070
		B3	0.1526	B31	0.3969	0.0096
				B32	0.6031	0.0146
C	0.2337	C1	0.4594	C11	0.4821	0.0518
				C12	0.5179	0.0556
		C2	0.1623	C21	0.2239	0.0085
				C22	0.5193	0.0197
				C23	0.2568	0.0097
		C3	0.3783	C31	0.3277	0.0290
				C32	0.6723	0.0594
D	0.3557	D1	0.5470	D11	0.2485	0.0484
				D12	0.7515	0.1462
		D2	0.4530	D21	0.4034	0.0650
				D22	0.5966	0.0961

After three rounds of expert questionnaire indicators statistical analysis parameters

Index system		Mean ± SD	Coefficient of variation
Primary index	Ideological and political education background evaluation /A	4.730±0.490	0.139
	Evaluation of ideological and political education input /B	4.823±0.423	0.110
	Evaluation of ideological and political implementation /C	4.735±0.495	0.104
	Evaluation of implementation effect of ideological and political education /D	4.837±0.437	0.112
Secondary index	Requirements Analysis /A1	4.642±0.532	0.157
	Ideological and political Foundation /A2	4.722±0.482	0.112
	Teaching staff /B1	4.711±0.471	0.108
	Investment /B2	4.730±0.670	0.166
	Organizational Assurance /B3	4.014±0.644	0.197
	Planning and Design /C1	4.408±0.498	0.150
	Teaching process /C2	4.011±0.641	0.192
	Course Assessment /C3	4.337±0.677	0.198
	Direct effects /D1	4.744±0.684	0.155
	Course impact /D2	4.827±0.427	0.091
Three-level index	Students need /A11	4.112±0.712	0.178
	The school needs /A12	4.940±0.340	0.109
	Social needs /A13	4.105±0.545	0.160
	Discipline construction /A21	4.547±0.547	0.151
	Campus culture /A22	4.917±0.317	0.069
	Research environment /A23	4.331±0.491	0.155
	Moral cultivation/ B11	4.844±0.444	0.087
	Teaching performance /B12	4.130±0.860	0.243
	Responsibility awareness /B13	4.703±0.463	0.146
	Scientific research funds /B21	4.712±0.472	0.138
	Textbook development /B22	4.832±0.432	0.086
	Facilities and equipment /B23	4.509±0.509	0.134
	Team building /B31	4.007±0.637	0.205
	Regulations /B32	4.949±0.349	0.110
	Management services /B33	4.603±0.493	0.142
	The curriculum /C11	4.748±0.508	0.142
	Curriculum system /C12	4.034±0.804	0.144
	Teaching content /C21	4.820±0.420	0.090
	Teaching method /C22	4.249±0.649	0.141
	Classroom supervision /C23	4.802±0.402	0.113
	Assessment content /C31	4.703±0.510	0.141
	Assessment method /C32	4.815±0.422	0.182
	Student satisfaction /D11	4.719±0.478	0.104
	Student literacy /D12	4.807±0.415	0.113
	Professionalism /D21	4.629±0.522	0.150
	Professional Practice /D22	4.758±0.444	0.182

RI values of matrix order 1-10

Rank	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
RI	0.00	0.00	0.51	0.84	1.15	1.28	1.39	1.44	1.48	1.50

Distribution of the overall population of the research sample

Name	Options	N	%
Gender	Male	1052	37.36
	Female	1764	62.64
Age	17-18 years old	785	27.88
	19-20 years old	1218	43.25
	21-22 years old	652	23.15
	22-24 years old	161	5.72
Grade	Freshman	904	32.10
	Sophomore	853	30.29
	Junior	704	25.00
	Senior	355	12.61
Political status	Party members (including probationary members)	208	7.39
	Member of the Communist Youth League	1864	66.19
	Democratic parties or persons without party affiliation	11	0.39
	Masses	733	26.03
Subject category	Humanities and social sciences	1648	58.52
	Science and engineering	1168	41.48
Total		2816	100%