Based on soliciting opinions and suggestions from relevant universities, experts and scholars, professional organizations and relevant government departments, the indicators framework of CDE is formulated with consensus and prudential research. The indicators Framework of CDE takes “Morality Education Effectiveness” as the fundamental principle, “Quality, Effectiveness, Characteristic, Contribution” as the value orientation, “Combination of Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation” as the basic method, and “Talent Training Quality”, “Teaching Staff and Resources”, “Scientific Research Level”, and “Social Service and Discipline Reputation” as the structure.
In order to fully examine the characteristics of different disciplines, 12 second-level indicators and 17-21 third-level indicators are set for each first-level discipline (see the table below for the latest indicator framework). On the basis of expert consultation through Delphi Method, the weights of the indicator system are formulated separately for each first-level discipline.
Indicators Framework of CDE
First Level Indicators |
Second Level Indicators |
Indicators Description |
A. Talent Training Quality |
|
Put ideological and political education in the first place in talent training, and focus on the comprehensive reform and effectiveness of the “Training talent through the whole staff, overall process, and all-round”. |
A2.Quality of the Talent Training Process
|
|
|
A3.Quality of Students in School
|
|
|
A4.Quality of Graduates |
||
B. Teaching Staff and Resources |
B1.Teaching Staff |
|
B2.Platform Resources
|
Dilute the conditions and resource indicators such as laboratories and bases, and evaluate “supporting platforms” and “major instruments and equipment” with classification.
|
|
C. Scientific Research (Art/Design Practice) Level
|
C1.Scientific Research Achievements(and Its Conversion)
|
The evaluation of “quality of academic papers” adopts the “representative evaluation” method of “combination of Chinese journals and foreign journals”, highlighting the innovation quality and academic contribution of iconic academic achievements, diluting the number and citation rate of papers, and not taking SCI and ESI indicators as the direct basis for judgment. |
C2.Scientific Research Projects and Awards |
|
|
|
Such indicators are set separately for some art and architecture disciplines, highlighting the characteristics of aesthetic education and culture, paying more attention to their practicality, and emphasizing both scientific research and creative design. |
|
|
||
D. Social Service and Discipline Reputation |
D1.Social Services |
Strengthen the actual contribution of disciplines to major national and regional strategic needs and economic and social development. Philosophy and social science disciplines put more emphasis on cultural inheritance and innovation and the role of think tanks, and natural science disciplines put more emphasis on the transformation and application of scientific and technological achievements and solving key and core technical problems. |
D2.Discipline Reputation |
Invite peer experts outside the Chinese mainland to conduct international reputation surveys on 18 disciplines including Education, Archaeology, Mathematics, Mechanical engineering, Veterinary medicine and Design, etc. |