Article Preview
TopModern teaching evaluation methods originated in the United States. In terms of education and teaching evaluation, American universities have proposed various innovative and pragmatic reforms (Yu, 2021). The evaluation results are mainly influenced by the degree of consistency of opinions among evaluation participants rather than determined by how well they reflect the objective reality. Therefore, teaching evaluation should pay more attention to the evaluation process. The three main contents of the evaluation system of curriculum and teaching quality in American universities include the evaluation of the rationality of curriculum design, the teaching methods of teachers, and the effectiveness of content allocation (Gao, 2022). This relatively flexible evaluation method can fully stimulate students’ enthusiasm and initiative to learn, effectively cultivating an innovative spirit (Liu et al., 2021).
School physical education has long been carried out in developed countries, and various distinctive teaching systems have formed. Regarding theory, relatively comprehensive research has been carried out on teaching objectives, selection of teaching content, curriculum implementation, and teaching evaluation (Li et al., 2022). For example, in the United States, the evaluation index system for the quality of physical education teaching in universities presents a diversified feature, and many universities generally consider students’ evaluation of courses as the most important indicator for evaluating teaching quality. In Japan, school sports are essentially a means to cultivate students’ overall quality; thus, they have established a comprehensive model in which school sports are the main body and club activities, or recreational sports are supplementary.
Scholars have used AHP to evaluate the quality of physical education teaching based on the characteristics of physical education courses. In specific course evaluations, Zhang et al. (2021) used the maximum frequency method to obtain the weight vector of major items and the weight matrix of sub-items. Stockinger et al. (2021) used AHP to evaluate remote education and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to reduce the impact of uncertain factors. They used a calculation model for operator “O” to avoid mainstream evaluation results being submerged, fully reflecting various evaluation opinions. The above studies mainly introduce the AHP and fuzzy evaluation methods to calculate the weight of indicators and clarify the hierarchical structure of the curriculum system. However, combining the two methods is rare. We believe that to achieve more comprehensive and objective evaluation results for different course systems, it is necessary to accurately select mathematical methods and comprehensively analyze data models (Naidoo & Naidoo, 2021). The abovementioned scholars conducted research separately from the theoretical perspective of evaluation standards, the construction of indicator systems, and the independent evaluation of mathematical methods. However, indicators are primarily determined based on the subjective experience of experts, and their accuracy and coverage affect the evaluation results (Sun & Gao, 2021). This article utilizes the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to fully leverage the advantages of expert evaluation, integrating fuzzy mathematics with hierarchical structure and trade-off comparison, significantly improving the objectivity and accuracy of the evaluation results.