1. bookAHEAD OF PRINT
Detalles de la revista
License
Formato
Revista
eISSN
2444-8656
Primera edición
01 Jan 2016
Calendario de la edición
2 veces al año
Idiomas
Inglés
Acceso abierto

Children's Educational Curriculum Evaluation Management System in Mathematical Equation Model

Publicado en línea: 15 Jul 2022
Volumen & Edición: AHEAD OF PRINT
Páginas: -
Recibido: 08 Feb 2022
Aceptado: 30 Mar 2022
Detalles de la revista
License
Formato
Revista
eISSN
2444-8656
Primera edición
01 Jan 2016
Calendario de la edición
2 veces al año
Idiomas
Inglés
Introduction

Competence refers to the deep-level characteristics of individuals that can distinguish excellent people from ordinary people at work and can be reliably measured. Contents include motivation, traits, self-image, attitudes and values, knowledge in a certain field, cognitive or behavioral skills, etc. All these models are essentially a single job competency model. Therefore, the model has poor adaptability, and it isn't easy to provide a good foundation for establishing the organization's overall procedures and systems. At present, there is a lack of research on applying the competency model of kindergarten teachers to actual selection [1]. Our research on this issue should have very theoretical and practical value. Therefore, through research and exploration, the preschool teacher selection index system based on the preschool teacher competency model is used to make up for the lack of research in this area.

Construction of preschool teachers' competency selection index model
Research object

The kindergarten teachers in the research refer to professionals who perform the education and teaching duties of public and private kindergartens.

The content includes class teachers and childcare workers, full-time principals, trainee teachers, substitute teachers, logistics staff, etc. The classification standard of excellent kindergarten teachers is the auxiliary index for evaluating the unit based on their work performance [2]. The interviewees were divided into two groups, “excellent” and “average.” Judgment of an excellent kindergarten teacher: the Z score of the kindergarten teacher's total evaluation score is more than 1 standard deviation: Z=XX¯SD Z = {{X - \bar X} \over {SD}} .

X represents the score assessed by the preschool teacher. represents the overall average number of preschool teachers assessed in the sample group.

After the initial establishment of the hierarchical structure model of the competency of kindergarten teachers, the subordination relationship between the evaluation indicators will be determined accordingly. For example, the competence of kindergarten teachers as the target level A has a binding force on the six elements of the next level. The purpose of constructing the judgment matrix is to calculate the relative weights of each criterion layer and sub-criterion layer under the target layer A. Evaluating the competence of preschool teachers in education is a more complicated issue. It is very difficult for us to obtain the weight of each indicator directly. Therefore, we use the analytic hierarchy process to gradually obtain the relative weight by comparing the judgment matrix pairwise to solve this problem [3]. The judgment scale for pairwise comparison adopts a 1–9 scale, as shown in Table 1. We can use the scale of 1–9 to construct the judgment matrix of six relevant criterion levels under the evaluation of the competence of the target kindergarten teacher.

Explanation of the meaning of 1–9 scale.

Definition A:B
Equal 1
A little 3
Obvious 5
Strong 7
Extreme 9
The middle value of two adjacent judgment elements 2,4,6,8
AB=[B1/B1B1/B2B1/B6B2/B1B2/B2B2/B6B6/B1B6/B2B6/B6]=[1122311112311/211241/21/21/21/2131/21/31/31/411/31/2112221] {A_{ - B}} = \left[ {\matrix{ {{B_1}/{B_1}} & {{B_1}/{B_2}} & \cdots & {{B_1}/{B_6}} \cr {{B_2}/{B_1}} & {{B_2}/{B_2}} & \cdots & {{B_2}/{B_6}} \cr \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \cr {{B_6}/{B_1}} & {{B_6}/{B_2}} & \cdots & {{B_6}/{B_6}} \cr } } \right] = \left[ {\matrix{ 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 1 \cr 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 1 \cr {1/2} & 1 & 1 & 2 & 4 & {1/2} \cr {1/2} & {1/2} & {1/2} & 1 & 3 & {1/2} \cr {1/3} & {1/3} & {1/4} & 1 & {1/3} & {1/2} \cr 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 \cr } } \right]

B1−C establishes three sub-criteria C1, C2, C3 at the level of educational criteria and a judgment matrix for pairwise comparison: B1C[1271/2151/71/51] {B_{1 - C}}\left[ {\matrix{ 1 & 2 & 7 \cr {1/2} & 1 & 5 \cr {1/7} & {1/5} & 1 \cr } } \right]

B2−C establishes a judgment matrix of four sub-criteria C4, C5, C6, C7 for pairwise comparison under the level of scientific criteria: B2C=[12321/21211/31/211/21/2121] {B_{2 - C}} = \left[ {\matrix{ 1 & 2 & 3 & 2 \cr {1/2} & 1 & 2 & 1 \cr {1/3} & {1/2} & 1 & {1/2} \cr {1/2} & 1 & 2 & 1 \cr } } \right]

B3−C establishes a judgment matrix of three sub-criteria C8, C9, C10 for pairwise comparison under the fun criterion level: B3C[1521/511/31/231] {B_{3 - C}}\left[ {\matrix{ 1 & 5 & 2 \cr {1/5} & 1 & {1/3} \cr {1/2} & 3 & 1 \cr } } \right]

B4−C establishes a judgment matrix of four sub-criteria B1−CC11, C12, C13, C14 for pairwise comparison under the innovative criterion level: B4C=[14671/41561/61/5131/71/61/31] {B_{4 - C}} = \left[ {\matrix{ 1 & 4 & 6 & 7 \cr {1/4} & 1 & 5 & 6 \cr {1/6} & {1/5} & 1 & 3 \cr {1/7} & {1/6} & {1/3} & 1 \cr } } \right]

B5−C establishes a judgment matrix of three sub-criteria C15, C16, C17 for pairwise comparison under the level of the simplicity criterion: B5C[11/31/2311211] {B_{5 - C}}\left[ {\matrix{ 1 & {1/3} & {1/2} \cr 3 & 1 & 1 \cr 2 & 1 & 1 \cr } } \right]

B6−C establishes a judgment matrix of three sub-criteria C18, C19, C20 that are compared in pairs under the security criterion level: B6C[1151131/51/31] {B_{6 - C}}\left[ {\matrix{ 1 & 1 & 5 \cr 1 & 1 & 3 \cr {1/5} & {1/3} & 1 \cr } } \right]

According to the established standards, we interviewed 30 kindergarten teachers from more than ten public and private kindergartens [4]. The specific situation of 30 kindergarten teachers is shown in Table 2.

Participant distribution table.

Demographic variables Dimension N Percentage
Gender female 29 −96.70%
male 1 −3.30%
Nationality Nasi 16 −53.30%
Chinese 7 −23.30%
White 4 −13.30%
Tibetan 1 −3.30%
Yi 1 −3.30%
Pumi 1 −3.30%
Education high school 3 −10%
Technical secondary school 5 −16.70%
Junior college 14 −46.7%
Undergraduate 8 −26.70%
Teaching age Less than 3 years 8 −26.70%
3–5 years 4 −13.30%
6–10 years 8 −26.70%
11–15 years 5 −16.70%
More than 15 years 5 −16.70%
Job title without 11 −36.60%
Primary education level three 1 −3.30%
Primary Education Level 2 4 −13.30%
Primary education level 9 −30%
Elementary Education Senior 5 −16.70%
Research methods and tools
Research methods

McClelland developed the Key Incident Interview Method (BEI)based on Flanagan's Key Incident Interview Method [5]. This method mainly obtains quality information related to high performance through interviews with outstanding employees and ordinary employees. The advantages of this method are as follows: First, it is close to the real working situation. The second is to help analyze extremely abstract features such as psychological traits and behavioral styles hidden behind the behavior from the specific behavior description of the interview data.

Competency coding

There are 30 valid text materials in the collated interview records and recording materials. The longest is 18820 words, the shortest is 5434 words, and the average number of words is 6960. The material coding team comprises 3 psychology researchers who have received relevant coding training [6]. Independent double-blind coding shall be carried out after the coders are fully familiar with the coding manual and materials and the coding results reach a high degree of consistency. In the end, entries consistent with more than 2 coders will be retained.

Research results
Length (word count) analysis

We conducted a t-test on the average interview length of the excellent group and the general group [7]. There was no significant difference in the length of the interview between the two groups (P>0.05) (Table 3). This shows that the subject's competency performance is not directly related to the length of the interview.

The t-test of interview length.

Group N M SD t p
Excellent group 15 10198 3563.16 0.432 0.068
General group 15 9731 2205.87
Frequency analysis of competency selection indicators

We conducted an r test on frequency, average read, highest grade, and interview length. The study found that 14, 14, and 10 competencies are significantly related to interview length (word count) (Table 4). This shows that the average score and frequency of competency selection indicators increase with interviews, but the highest grade scores are relatively stable.

r-test of frequency of competency, average grade, highest grade, and interview length.

Capability Length and frequency Length and the average score Length and maximum score
Enterprising 0.387 0.457 0.523
Work specification 0.244 0.174 0.135
Observation 0.455 0.472 0.142
Proactive 0.441 0.376 0.575
Interpersonal communication 0.346 0.587 0.142
Child care center 0.463 0.435 0.456
Persuasive influence 0.137 0.353 0.342
Organizational Cognition 0.142 0.142 0.351
Teacher-child relationship 0.457 0.381 0.128
Early Childhood Education 0.409 0.395 0.154
Give orders 0.015 0.059 0.148
Homeland Cooperation 0.251 0.435 0.388
Leadership control 0.243 0.124 0.144
problem analysis 0.527 0.432 0.454
Preschool knowledge and skills 0.632 0.626 0.449
Stress management 0.144 0.157 0.179
Self-confidence 0.511 0.488 0.313
flexibility 0.334 0.352 0.236
Organizational commitment 0.151 0.266 0.165
Analysis of the total frequency of competence

The total frequency of competence of the excellent and general groups appeared t-test (Table 5 (P=0.00<0.01)). This shows that the amazing group is higher than the general group.

Total frequency analysis of competency.

Group N M SD t P
Excellent group 15 722.4 264.42 6.83 0
General group 15 220.93 104.77
Determination of Competency Selection Index Model

We conducted a t-test on the difference in frequency, average grade score, and highest grade score between the excellent and general groups. There are significant differences between the excellent and general groups in these three scoring indicators. Statistics found that the competencies found by the three scoring indicators have great reproducibility [8]. Therefore, we use two or more scoring indicators to repeatedly show significant differences in incompetence to establish a competency selection model for kindergarten teachers. The content includes 13 items of initiative, observation, proactiveness, interpersonal communication, child care center, persuasive influence, teacher-child relationship, early childhood education, home cooperation, problem analysis, preschool education knowledge and skills, self-confidence, and educational wit.

Analysis of the difference of preschool teachers' competency selection indicators

Through the competence selection indicators of the amazing group of kindergarten teachers, the differences of teaching age, professional title, ethnicity, and kindergarten nature are tested in frequency, average grade score, and highest grade score. No significant difference was found in the results.

Reliability

Categorization consistency refers to the same number of codes categorized by different coders for the same interview data as the total number of codes. The calculation formula is CA = (3 × T1I T2I T3) / (T1 ∪ T2 ∪ T3). T1 is the code number of rater A. T2 is the code number of scorer B. T3 is the code number of rater C. T1I T2I T3 is a number with the same coding classification. T1 ∪ T2 ∪ T3 is the sum of the coded numbers. In this study T1 = 6203, T2 = 6188, T3 = 6195,.

Validity

We use the difference test between the average grade score and the highest grade score between the excellent and general groups to determine the difference between the excellent and general groups in the preschool teacher's standard sample (Table 6). The statistical results show that the average and highest competency selection indicators are significantly different in the two groups [9]. This model can be used as an indicator to distinguish excellent from ordinary.

Competency characteristics frequency, average grade score, and highest grade score difference test between the excellent and general groups.

Average grade score Highest grade score
Compare items Excellent group mean General group mean t Excellent group mean General group mean t
Enterprising 2.14 1.32 4.43 5.43 3.79 4.29
Work specification 0.24 0.25 2.27 0.46 0.45 1
Observation 1.2 1.07 1.04 2.57 1.99 4.18
Proactive 1.84 1.98 3.82 3.5 1.9 3.57
Interpersonal communication 1.18 0.91 1.87 2.81 1.04 4.35
Toddler-oriented 1.86 0.73 3.68 4.57 3.22 2.47
Persuasive influence 2.48 1.61 4.21 6.25 4.16 3.52
Organizational Cognition 1.48 1.1 0.15 4.32 3.22 1.14
Teacher-child relationship 1.09 0.57 2.64 2.86 1.93 1.76
Toddler training 0.78 0.6 1.78 2.2 1.01 3.97
Give orders 0.48 0.52 1.32 0.76 0.53 1.19
Homeland Cooperation 1.95 0.43 3.90 3.89 2.08 3.72
Leadership control 1.78 0.65 3.73 3.75 1.42 3.47
problem analysis 2.66 1.09 3.56 4.19 2.62 3.44
Preschool knowledge and skills 0.32 0.35 1.29 2.57 0.81 3.60
Stress management 0.16 0.32 1.53 1.67 1.26 0.94
Self-confidence 2.15 0.23 3.25 2.29 1.1 4.14
Educational wit 2.48 1.23 1.89 4.31 1.27 3.28
Organizational commitment 0.52 0.32 1.23 1.32 0.49 2.53
Discussion
About interview length and interview method

Although preschool teachers in all kindergartens generally can only take their short spare time to participate in the interview, the content and purpose of the preschool teacher's expressions have completed the content and purpose required by the interview outline [10]. The research results show that the interview length has no significant effect on the appearance of competence. Compared with the general group, the excellent group showed significant differences in multiple competencies, and the reliability and validity were also relatively ideal.

Applicability of the preschool teacher competency selection index model

We tested the differences in the frequency, average grade score, and highest grade score of teaching age, professional title, ethnicity, and nature of kindergarten on the competency selection indicators of the amazing group of kindergarten teachers [11]. The results show that the constructed preschool teacher competency selection index model will not change due to the influence of teaching age, professional title, ethnicity, and nature of kindergarten. This has good stability and can better represent the true job competence of kindergarten teachers.

Conclusion

The article adopts the analytic hierarchy process to reveal the competency selection index model of kindergarten teachers. The frequency, average level, and highest competency selection indicators can distinguish excellent and ordinary kindergarten teachers. There is no significant difference between the excellent group and the general group regarding interview length and number of events. Competency frequency and average grade are relatively stable indicators. The length of the interview will affect the highest grade score. Through kindergarten teachers' competency selection index model, the difference test of teaching age, professional title, ethnicity, and kindergarten nature did not find significant differences. This shows that the competency selection index model has a good reference value for the selection of kindergarten teachers.

Explanation of the meaning of 1–9 scale.

Definition A:B
Equal 1
A little 3
Obvious 5
Strong 7
Extreme 9
The middle value of two adjacent judgment elements 2,4,6,8

Total frequency analysis of competency.

Group N M SD t P
Excellent group 15 722.4 264.42 6.83 0
General group 15 220.93 104.77

Participant distribution table.

Demographic variables Dimension N Percentage
Gender female 29 −96.70%
male 1 −3.30%
Nationality Nasi 16 −53.30%
Chinese 7 −23.30%
White 4 −13.30%
Tibetan 1 −3.30%
Yi 1 −3.30%
Pumi 1 −3.30%
Education high school 3 −10%
Technical secondary school 5 −16.70%
Junior college 14 −46.7%
Undergraduate 8 −26.70%
Teaching age Less than 3 years 8 −26.70%
3–5 years 4 −13.30%
6–10 years 8 −26.70%
11–15 years 5 −16.70%
More than 15 years 5 −16.70%
Job title without 11 −36.60%
Primary education level three 1 −3.30%
Primary Education Level 2 4 −13.30%
Primary education level 9 −30%
Elementary Education Senior 5 −16.70%

Competency characteristics frequency, average grade score, and highest grade score difference test between the excellent and general groups.

Average grade score Highest grade score
Compare items Excellent group mean General group mean t Excellent group mean General group mean t
Enterprising 2.14 1.32 4.43 5.43 3.79 4.29
Work specification 0.24 0.25 2.27 0.46 0.45 1
Observation 1.2 1.07 1.04 2.57 1.99 4.18
Proactive 1.84 1.98 3.82 3.5 1.9 3.57
Interpersonal communication 1.18 0.91 1.87 2.81 1.04 4.35
Toddler-oriented 1.86 0.73 3.68 4.57 3.22 2.47
Persuasive influence 2.48 1.61 4.21 6.25 4.16 3.52
Organizational Cognition 1.48 1.1 0.15 4.32 3.22 1.14
Teacher-child relationship 1.09 0.57 2.64 2.86 1.93 1.76
Toddler training 0.78 0.6 1.78 2.2 1.01 3.97
Give orders 0.48 0.52 1.32 0.76 0.53 1.19
Homeland Cooperation 1.95 0.43 3.90 3.89 2.08 3.72
Leadership control 1.78 0.65 3.73 3.75 1.42 3.47
problem analysis 2.66 1.09 3.56 4.19 2.62 3.44
Preschool knowledge and skills 0.32 0.35 1.29 2.57 0.81 3.60
Stress management 0.16 0.32 1.53 1.67 1.26 0.94
Self-confidence 2.15 0.23 3.25 2.29 1.1 4.14
Educational wit 2.48 1.23 1.89 4.31 1.27 3.28
Organizational commitment 0.52 0.32 1.23 1.32 0.49 2.53

r-test of frequency of competency, average grade, highest grade, and interview length.

Capability Length and frequency Length and the average score Length and maximum score
Enterprising 0.387 0.457 0.523
Work specification 0.244 0.174 0.135
Observation 0.455 0.472 0.142
Proactive 0.441 0.376 0.575
Interpersonal communication 0.346 0.587 0.142
Child care center 0.463 0.435 0.456
Persuasive influence 0.137 0.353 0.342
Organizational Cognition 0.142 0.142 0.351
Teacher-child relationship 0.457 0.381 0.128
Early Childhood Education 0.409 0.395 0.154
Give orders 0.015 0.059 0.148
Homeland Cooperation 0.251 0.435 0.388
Leadership control 0.243 0.124 0.144
problem analysis 0.527 0.432 0.454
Preschool knowledge and skills 0.632 0.626 0.449
Stress management 0.144 0.157 0.179
Self-confidence 0.511 0.488 0.313
flexibility 0.334 0.352 0.236
Organizational commitment 0.151 0.266 0.165

The t-test of interview length.

Group N M SD t p
Excellent group 15 10198 3563.16 0.432 0.068
General group 15 9731 2205.87

Jena, R., Pradhan, B., Beydoun, G., Sofyan, H., & Affan, M. Integrated model for earthquake risk assessment using neural network and analytic hierarchy process: Aceh province, Indonesia. Geoscience Frontiers., 2020; 11(2): 613–634 JenaR. PradhanB. BeydounG. SofyanH. AffanM. Integrated model for earthquake risk assessment using neural network and analytic hierarchy process: Aceh province, Indonesia Geoscience Frontiers 2020 11 2 613 634 10.1016/j.gsf.2019.07.006 Search in Google Scholar

Nalmpantis, D., Roukouni, A., Genitsaris, E., Stamelou, A., & Naniopoulos, A. Evaluation of innovative ideas for Public Transport proposed by citizens using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). European Transport Research Review., 2019; 11(1): 1–16 NalmpantisD. RoukouniA. GenitsarisE. StamelouA. NaniopoulosA. Evaluation of innovative ideas for Public Transport proposed by citizens using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) European Transport Research Review 2019 11 1 1 16 10.1186/s12544-019-0356-6 Search in Google Scholar

Roszkowska, E., & Filipowicz-Chomko, M. Measuring sustainable development in the education area using multi-criteria methods: a case study. Central European Journal of Operations Research., 2020; 28(4): 1219–1241 RoszkowskaE. Filipowicz-ChomkoM. Measuring sustainable development in the education area using multi-criteria methods: a case study Central European Journal of Operations Research 2020 28 4 1219 1241 10.1007/s10100-019-00641-0 Search in Google Scholar

Teng, Y., Li, X., Wu, P., & Wang, X. Using cooperative game theory to determine profit distribution in IPD projects. International Journal of Construction Management., 2019; 19(1): 32–45 TengY. LiX. WuP. WangX. Using cooperative game theory to determine profit distribution in IPD projects International Journal of Construction Management 2019 19 1 32 45 10.1080/15623599.2017.1358075 Search in Google Scholar

Sharma, S., & Mahajan, A. K. A comparative assessment of information value, frequency ratio and analytical hierarchy process models for landslide susceptibility mapping of a Himalayan watershed, India. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment., 2019; 78(4): 2431–2448 SharmaS. MahajanA. K. A comparative assessment of information value, frequency ratio and analytical hierarchy process models for landslide susceptibility mapping of a Himalayan watershed, India Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 2019 78 4 2431 2448 10.1007/s10064-018-1259-9 Search in Google Scholar

Şahin, T., Ocak, S., & Top, M. Analytic hierarchy process for hospital site selection. Health Policy and Technology., 2019; 8(1): 42–50 ŞahinT. OcakS. TopM. Analytic hierarchy process for hospital site selection Health Policy and Technology 2019 8 1 42 50 10.1016/j.hlpt.2019.02.005 Search in Google Scholar

Ghadge, A., Er Kara, M., Mogale, D. G., Choudhary, S., & Dani, S. Sustainability implementation challenges in food supply chains: A case of UK artisan cheese producers. Production Planning & Control., 2021; 32(14): 1191–1206 GhadgeA. Er KaraM. MogaleD. G. ChoudharyS. DaniS. Sustainability implementation challenges in food supply chains: A case of UK artisan cheese producers Production Planning & Control 2021 32 14 1191 1206 10.1080/09537287.2020.1796140 Search in Google Scholar

Dogan, O., Deveci, M., Canıtez, F., & Kahraman, C. A corridor selection for locating autonomous vehicles using an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS method. Soft Computing., 2020; 24(12): 8937–8953 DoganO. DeveciM. CanıtezF. KahramanC. A corridor selection for locating autonomous vehicles using an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS method Soft Computing 2020 24 12 8937 8953 10.1007/s00500-019-04421-5 Search in Google Scholar

Alam, M. S., & Mondal, M. Assessment of sanitation service quality in urban slums of Khulna city based on SERVQUAL and AHP model: A case study of railway slum, Khulna, Bangladesh. Journal of Urban Management., 2019; 8(1): 20–27 AlamM. S. MondalM. Assessment of sanitation service quality in urban slums of Khulna city based on SERVQUAL and AHP model: A case study of railway slum, Khulna, Bangladesh Journal of Urban Management 2019 8 1 20 27 10.1016/j.jum.2018.08.002 Search in Google Scholar

Gençoğlu, M. & Agarwal, P. Use of Quantum Differential Equations in Sonic Processes. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences., 2021; 6(1): 21–28 GençoğluM. AgarwalP. Use of Quantum Differential Equations in Sonic Processes Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 2021 6 1 21 28 10.2478/amns.2020.2.00003 Search in Google Scholar

Zhou, P., Fan, Q. & Zhu, J. Empirical Analysis on Environmental Regulation Performance Measurement in Manufacturing Industry: A Case Study of Chongqing, China. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences., 2020; 5(1): 25–34 ZhouP. FanQ. ZhuJ. Empirical Analysis on Environmental Regulation Performance Measurement in Manufacturing Industry: A Case Study of Chongqing, China Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 2020 5 1 25 34 10.2478/amns.2020.1.00003 Search in Google Scholar

Artículos recomendados de Trend MD

Planifique su conferencia remota con Sciendo