A teaching management method for integrated undergraduate and graduate programs in art-related majors

Abstract

This invention discloses an integrated undergraduate-graduate teaching management method applicable to art-related majors, relating to the field of educational management technology. The method includes: establishing a student competency rating system to conduct initial competency ratings for undergraduate and graduate students; employing a balanced grouping algorithm to allocate students of different competency levels to various teaching groups, ensuring that the number of students at each competency level is roughly equal within each group; establishing a tiered guidance mechanism of "high-achieving students mentoring lower-achieving students, and one student mentoring many others," forming a pyramid-shaped multi-level guidance chain; reassessing students' competency according to a preset cycle and adjusting students' competency levels based on the assessment results; re-executing the balanced grouping algorithm to reorganize the teaching groups; and establishing an integrated teaching outcome evaluation system to comprehensively evaluate students' individual growth and the overall group outcomes.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of educational management technology, and in particular to an integrated undergraduate and graduate teaching management method applicable to art-related majors. Background Technology

[0002] The integrated undergraduate-graduate teaching model is an important approach to breaking down the barriers between undergraduate and graduate education and achieving continuity and systematic talent cultivation. It has been widely applied in many disciplines. However, most existing integrated undergraduate-graduate teaching management methods are designed for science and engineering majors and are difficult to adapt to the core characteristics of art majors, which emphasize practice, creation, personalized expression, and apprenticeship.

[0003] In current technology, the integrated undergraduate and graduate education in art-related majors generally suffers from the following shortcomings: 1. Arbitrary and unbalanced grouping methods: The use of free or random grouping methods results in some groups being too strong and others being too weak, which makes it impossible to achieve mutual learning and difficult to ensure fairness in teaching.

[0004] 2. Lack of an effective tiered mentoring mechanism: The relationship between graduate students and undergraduates is mostly loose, without a clear mentoring chain. The "higher-to-lower" mentoring model remains merely a slogan and fails to fully leverage the role of graduate students in passing on their knowledge and skills.

[0005] 3. The evaluation system is too rigid and singular: it relies too much on the final product for evaluation, neglecting students' process growth, contributions to guiding others, and teamwork performance, and thus fails to fully reflect students' comprehensive abilities.

[0006] 4. No dynamic adjustment mechanism: Once a student's ability level and role are determined, they remain unchanged for a long time. Students who improve their abilities quickly cannot obtain higher guidance authority and development space, while students with insufficient abilities cannot receive targeted assistance.

[0007] 5. Low integration of undergraduate and graduate education: Undergraduate and graduate teaching are still in a "two-tiered" state, simply overlapping in terms of curriculum design, without achieving true integration of teaching resources, teaching process and evaluation system.

[0008] Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop an integrated undergraduate and graduate teaching management method that is specifically designed for the characteristics of art majors and can achieve balanced grouping, tiered guidance, dynamic rating, and comprehensive evaluation. Summary of the Invention

[0009] The purpose of this invention is to overcome the shortcomings of existing technologies and provide a teaching management method for integrated undergraduate and graduate education in art-related majors. By establishing a scientific ability rating system, a balanced grouping method, a pyramid-shaped hierarchical guidance mechanism, a dynamic evaluation and adjustment mechanism, and an integrated achievement evaluation system, this invention addresses the problems of uneven grouping, ineffective guidance, singular evaluation, and lack of dynamism in existing integrated undergraduate and graduate education in art-related majors.

[0010] To address the aforementioned technical problems, this invention provides the following technical solution: a method for integrated undergraduate and graduate teaching management applicable to art-related majors, comprising the following steps: S1: Establish a student competency rating system to conduct an initial competency rating for all undergraduate and graduate students participating in the integrated undergraduate-graduate teaching program, and divide students into N competency levels, where N≥3.

[0011] The student competency rating system includes four dimensions: professional basic competency, creative practice competency, innovative thinking competency, and teamwork competency. Each dimension is scored on a 100-point scale, and the student's competency level is determined by the weighted average score.

[0012] The initial competency assessment specifically includes: for undergraduates, a comprehensive assessment based on their entrance examination scores, previous academic year's professional course grades, and professional skills test scores; for graduate students, a comprehensive assessment based on their postgraduate entrance examination scores, undergraduate professional performance, entrance examination scores, and supervisor recommendations.

[0013] S2: Based on the teaching tasks and the total number of students, determine the number of teaching groups and the number of students in each group. Use a balanced grouping method to allocate students of different ability levels to each teaching group, so that the number of students of each ability level in each group is basically equal.

[0014] The balanced grouping method specifically includes: S21: Sort all students in descending order of ability level; S22: The students are assigned to teaching groups in sequence using a serpentine allocation method; S23: Count the number of students at each ability level in each group. If the number of students at a certain level differs by more than 1, make minor adjustments to ensure that the overall ability level of each group is basically the same.

[0015] S3: Establish a tiered guidance mechanism of "high-level students mentoring low-level students and one student mentoring multiple students". In each group, high-level students serve as mentors, and each mentor is responsible for guiding 1-3 low-level students, forming a multi-level guidance chain.

[0016] The "high-level mentoring low-level, one-to-many" tiered guidance mechanism specifically includes: each top-level student mentors 2-3 second-highest-level students; each second-highest-level student mentors 1-2 mid-level students; each mid-level student mentors 1 basic-level student; all mentoring relationships are formed within the group, creating a complete pyramid-shaped guidance structure.

[0017] S4: Implement dynamic teaching management, reassess the abilities of all students according to a preset cycle, and adjust the students' ability levels based on the assessment results.

[0018] The ability reassessment cycle is 4-8 weeks, and the assessment content includes: the quality of personal creative output, the effectiveness and contribution of mentoring others, participation and contribution in group projects, and the extent of improvement in professional skills.

[0019] The ability level adjustment adopts a step-by-step upward and downward mechanism, specifically: students in the top 20% of the comprehensive score can be promoted to a higher ability level; students in the bottom 10% of the comprehensive score will be demoted to a lower ability level; students who rank in the top 10% for two consecutive assessments can be eligible for skipping a level; students who rank in the bottom 5% for two consecutive assessments will be suspended from participating in the integrated undergraduate and graduate teaching program and will need to undergo special remedial training.

[0020] S5: Based on the adjusted student ability levels, re-execute the balanced grouping method of step S2 to reorganize the teaching groups.

[0021] The reorganization of teaching groups also takes into account students' professional direction and interests. Under the premise of ensuring the balance of abilities in each group, students with similar professional directions or the same interests are assigned to the same group as much as possible.

[0022] S6: Establish an integrated teaching outcome evaluation system to comprehensively evaluate students' individual growth and group overall results, and use the evaluation results as an important basis for the next round of competency assessment.

[0023] The integrated teaching outcome evaluation system adopts a combination of formative and summative evaluation, with formative evaluation accounting for 60%-70% and summative evaluation accounting for 30%-40%.

[0024] The formative assessment includes classroom performance, homework completion, guidance records, and participation in group discussions; the summative assessment includes final creative works, group project results, and presentation performance.

[0025] One or more technical solutions provided in the embodiments of this application have at least the following technical effects or advantages compared with the prior art: 1. Achieved truly balanced grouping: Through a scientific ability rating system and serpentine allocation method, it ensures that the overall ability level of each teaching group is basically the same, avoiding the phenomenon of "the strong getting stronger and the weak getting weaker", and providing all students with fair learning and performance opportunities.

[0026] 2. An efficient tiered guidance system was constructed: The pyramid-shaped multi-level guidance chain clarifies the role and responsibility of each student, gives full play to the role of high-ability students in mentoring others, and realizes "mutual learning" - the mentors deepen their understanding of knowledge in the process of guiding others, and the mentors receive targeted and personalized assistance.

[0027] 3. A dynamic ability adjustment mechanism has been established: regular ability reassessment and level adjustment can reflect changes in students' abilities in a timely manner, motivate students to make continuous progress, and at the same time enable the teaching resources and guidance relationships to be optimized according to the actual situation of students.

[0028] 4. A comprehensive integrated evaluation system has been formed: combining process evaluation and summative evaluation, it not only focuses on the final creative results, but also values ​​the students' process growth and team contributions, which is more in line with the laws of talent training in art majors.

[0029] 5. Deep integration of undergraduate and graduate education: Through a unified system of competency assessment, grouping, guidance and evaluation, the barriers between undergraduate and graduate education are broken down, achieving true integration of the teaching process, which is conducive to cultivating high-level art talents with solid foundation and innovative ability.

[0030] Other advantages, objectives and features of the invention will be set forth in part in the description which follows, and in part will be apparent to those skilled in the art from the following examination or study, or may be learned from the practice of the invention. Attached Figure Description

[0031] Figure 1 This is a timing diagram of the grouping algorithm of the present invention. Figure 2 This is a structural diagram of the pyramid-shaped hierarchical guidance mechanism of the present invention; Figure 3 This is a timing diagram for the dynamic capability assessment and level adjustment of the present invention; Figure 4 This is a flowchart illustrating the teaching group reorganization process of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0032] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0033] It should be noted that the terms "vertical," "horizontal," "up," "down," "left," "right," and similar expressions used in this article are for illustrative purposes only and do not represent the only possible implementation.

[0034] Unless otherwise defined, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this invention pertains; the terminology used herein in the description of the invention is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to limit the invention; the term "and / or" as used herein includes any and all combinations of one or more of the associated listed items.

[0035] The following describes specific embodiments and appendices. Figure 1-4 As shown, the present invention will be described in further detail below.

[0036] Example 1 This embodiment provides a teaching management method for integrated undergraduate and graduate studies in visual communication design, which includes the following steps: S1: Establish a student ability rating system, dividing students into 4 ability levels: S level (excellent, 90-100 points), A level (good, 80-89 points), B level (medium, 70-79 points), and C level (basic, 60-69 points).

[0037] The four dimensions and their weights in the competency rating system are: professional basic ability 30%, creative practice ability 40%, innovative thinking ability 20%, and teamwork ability 10%.

[0038] Initial ability rating: For the 20 third-year undergraduate students, a comprehensive evaluation was conducted based on their professional course grades in the first two academic years (accounting for 60%) and their professional skills test scores upon enrollment (accounting for 40%). The results were as follows: 10 students were rated C, 8 students were rated B, and 2 students were rated A.

[0039] For the 12 first-year graduate students, a comprehensive evaluation was conducted based on their entrance examination scores (40%), undergraduate performance (30%), and entrance examination scores (30%). The results were as follows: 2 students were rated B, 7 students were rated A, and 3 students were rated S.

[0040] S2: The total number of students is 32, divided into 8 teaching groups of 4 students each. A balanced grouping method will be used for grouping. S21: Sort all students by ability level from highest to lowest: 3 S-level, 9 A-level, 10 B-level, and 10 C-level.

[0041] S22: Distribute sequentially using a serpentine allocation method: Round 1: S1 → Group 1, S2 → Group 2, S3 → Group 3 Round 2: A1 → Group 8, A2 → Group 7, A3 → Group 6, A4 → Group 5, A5 → Group 4, A6 → Group 3, A7 → Group 2, A8 → Group 1, A9 → Group 1 Round 3: B1 → Group 1, B2 → Group 2, B3 → Group 3, B4 → Group 4, B5 → Group 5, B6 → Group 6, B7 → Group 7, B8 → Group 8, B9 → Group 8, B10 → Group 7 Round 4: C1 → Group 1, C2 → Group 2, C3 → Group 3, C4 → Group 4, C5 → Group 5, C6 → Group 6, C7 → Group 7, C8 → Group 8, C9 → Group 8, C10 → Group 7 S23: Analyzing the ability level distribution of each group, we found that Group 1 has 1 student at level A, 1 at level B, and 1 at level C, but lacks a student at level S; Group 3 has 1 student at level S, 1 at level A, 1 at level B, and 1 at level C, for a total of 4 students. A minor adjustment was made: the student at level A9 from Group 1 was moved to Group 3, and the student at level S3 from Group 3 was moved to Group 1. Ultimately, each group has 4 students, including 1 student at level S, 1 at level A, 1 at level B, and 1 at level C, resulting in a roughly equivalent overall ability level across the groups.

[0042] S3: Establish a pyramid-shaped hierarchical guidance mechanism within each group: One S-level student mentors one A-level student One A-level student mentors one B-level student. One B-level student mentors one C-level student. Mentors are required to have at least one one-on-one meeting with their mentees each week, record the content of the guidance and the mentee's progress, and submit the record to the mentor for review.

[0043] S4: Set the capability reassessment cycle to 6 weeks. The assessment content and weighting are as follows: quality of personal creative output 40%, effectiveness and contribution to mentoring others 25%, participation and contribution in group projects 25%, and improvement in professional skills 10%.

[0044] Ability Level Adjustment Rules: Students ranking in the top 20% (approximately 6 people) based on their overall scores will be promoted to the next level. Students ranking in the bottom 10% (approximately 3 students) based on their overall scores will be demoted to the next grade. Students who rank in the top 10% (approximately 3 people) in two consecutive assessments are eligible for promotion to a higher grade. Students who rank in the bottom 5% (approximately 2 students) in two consecutive assessments will have their eligibility for integrated undergraduate and graduate education suspended and will undergo 4 weeks of intensive remedial training. S5: Every 6 weeks, the teaching groups will be reorganized using a balanced grouping method based on the adjusted student ability levels. During the reorganization, while ensuring the balance of abilities in each group, priority will be given to students' professional direction (such as graphic design, brand design, illustration design, etc.) and interests, and students with similar professional directions will be assigned to the same group as much as possible.

[0045] S6: Establish an integrated teaching outcome evaluation system, with formative evaluation accounting for 65% and summative evaluation accounting for 35%.

[0046] Formative assessment: Classroom performance 15%, Homework completion 20%, Guidance records 15%, Group discussion participation 15%. Summative evaluation: Individual creative work (20%), group project results (10%), and presentation performance (5%). The evaluation results will not only serve as students' course grades, but also as an important basis for the next round of competency assessment (accounting for 50%).

[0047] Example 2 The difference between this embodiment and Embodiment 1 is that: The ability levels are divided into three categories: advanced, intermediate, and basic. The tiered mentoring mechanism is as follows: 1 advanced student mentors 2 intermediate students, and 1 intermediate student mentors 2 beginner students. The capability reassessment period is 8 weeks. Process-oriented evaluation accounts for 70%, and summative evaluation accounts for 30%. The above description is merely a preferred embodiment of the present invention and is not intended to limit the scope of protection of the present invention. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc., made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0048] Although the present invention has been disclosed above with reference to preferred embodiments, it is not intended to limit the present invention. Anyone skilled in the art can make various modifications and alterations without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. Therefore, the scope of protection of the present invention should be determined by the claims.

Claims

1. A method for integrated management of undergraduate and graduate teaching for art majors, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: S1: Establish a student competency rating system, conduct initial competency ratings for all undergraduate and graduate students participating in integrated undergraduate-graduate teaching, and divide students into N competency levels, where N≥3; S2: Based on the teaching tasks and the total number of students, determine the number of teaching groups and the number of students in each group. Use a balanced grouping method to allocate students of different ability levels to each teaching group so that the number of students of each ability level in each group is basically equal. S3: Establish a tiered guidance mechanism of "high-level students mentoring low-level students and one student mentoring multiple students". In each group, high-level students serve as mentors, and each mentor is responsible for guiding 1-3 low-level students, forming a multi-level guidance chain. S4: Implement dynamic teaching management, reassess the abilities of all students according to a preset cycle, and adjust the students' ability levels based on the assessment results; S5: Based on the adjusted student ability levels, re-execute the balanced grouping method of step S2 to reorganize the teaching groups; S6: Establish an integrated teaching outcome evaluation system to comprehensively evaluate students' individual growth and group overall results, and use the evaluation results as an important basis for the next round of competency assessment.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the method is characterized in that, The student competency rating system described in step S1 includes four dimensions: professional basic competency, creative practice competency, innovative thinking competency, and teamwork competency. Each dimension is scored on a 100-point scale, and the student's competency level is determined by the weighted average score.

3. The integrated undergraduate and graduate teaching management method for art majors according to claim 2, characterized in that, The initial capability rating mentioned in step S1 specifically includes: For undergraduate students, a comprehensive evaluation will be conducted based on their entrance examination scores, previous academic year's professional course grades, and professional skills test scores. For graduate students, a comprehensive evaluation is conducted based on their entrance examination scores, undergraduate performance, entrance examination scores, and recommendations from their supervisors.

4. The integrated undergraduate and graduate teaching management method for art majors according to claim 1, characterized in that, The balanced grouping method described in step S2 specifically includes: S21: Sort all students in descending order of ability level; S22: The students are assigned to teaching groups in sequence using a serpentine allocation method; S23: Count the number of students at each ability level in each group. If the number of students at a certain level differs by more than 1, make minor adjustments to ensure that the overall ability level of each group is basically the same.

5. The integrated undergraduate and graduate teaching management method for art majors according to claim 1, characterized in that, The "high-to-low, one-to-many" tiered guidance mechanism mentioned in step S3 specifically includes: Each top-level student mentors 2-3 higher-level students. Each student at the next highest level should mentor 1-2 students at the intermediate level. Each intermediate-level student will mentor one basic-level student. All mentoring relationships are formed within the group, creating a complete pyramid-shaped mentoring structure.

6. The integrated undergraduate and graduate teaching management method for art majors according to claim 1, characterized in that, The capability reassessment period described in step S4 is 4-8 weeks, and the assessment includes: The quality of individual creative achievements; The effects and contributions of guiding others; Participation and contribution in group projects; The extent of improvement in professional skills.

7. The integrated undergraduate and graduate teaching management method for art majors according to claim 6, characterized in that, The ability level adjustment described in step S4 adopts a step-by-step upward and downward mechanism, specifically as follows: Students who rank in the top 20% of the overall score can be promoted to the next higher ability level; Students in the bottom 10% of the overall score will be relegated to a lower ability level. Students who rank in the top 10% in two consecutive assessments are eligible for skipping a grade. Students who rank in the bottom 5% in two consecutive assessments will be suspended from participating in integrated undergraduate and graduate education programs and will be required to undergo specialized remedial instruction.

8. The integrated undergraduate and graduate teaching management method for art majors according to claim 1, characterized in that, The reorganization of teaching groups described in step S5 also takes into account students' professional direction and interests. Under the premise of ensuring the balance of abilities in each group, students with similar professional directions or the same interests are assigned to the same group as much as possible.

9. The integrated undergraduate and graduate teaching management method for art majors according to claim 1, characterized in that, The integrated teaching outcome evaluation system described in step S6 adopts a combination of formative evaluation and summative evaluation, with formative evaluation accounting for 60%-70% and summative evaluation accounting for 30%-40%.

10. The integrated undergraduate and graduate teaching management method for art majors according to claim 9, characterized in that, The formative assessment includes classroom performance, homework completion, guidance records, and participation in group discussions; the summative assessment includes final creative works, group project results, and presentation performance.

Images