The novel performance evaluation approach to martial arts teachers based on TOPSIS method

Transcription

1 Available online Journal of Chemical an Pharmaceutical Research, 204, 6(6): Research Article ISSN : CODEN(USA) : JCPRC5 The novel performance evaluation approach to martial arts teachers base on TOPSIS metho Qiao-Fang Liu an Yan-Tao Niu Jiaozuo Teachers College, Jiaozuo, P. R. China ABSTRACT The promotion of teachers professional technical position, the increase in the salary an treatment an evaluation of various awars involve evaluation of teachers work performance. For this reason, the novel performance evaluation approach to martial arts teachers is propose base on TOPSIS metho. The experimental results suggest that the propose approach is feasible an correct. Key wors: Performance Evaluation; Martial Arts Teachers; TOPSIS Metho INTRODUCTION In colleges, promotion of teachers professional technical position, the increase in the salary an treatment an evaluation of various awars involve evaluation of teachers work performance. For a long term, evaluation of teachers work performance has reste on qualitative analysis. Hierarchy is often aopte to escribe teachers work performance. The shortcoming of such metho is that the evaluation result is single an cannot comprehensively reflect the evaluation information. Besies, the objectivity is poor, an teachers have ifferent views. Teachers work performance is ecie by correlate multi-aspect factors, so it cannot be evaluate unilaterally. It is require to carry out comprehensive evaluation of relate factors influencing teachers work performance. Thus, this paper tries to apply TOPSIS metho to establish evaluation moel for teachers work performance so as to improve traitional evaluation metho. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION INDEX SYSTEM For the work performance of a teacher, ifferent human factor analysis perspectives will lea to ifferent evaluations. Analytic hierarchy process shoul be aopte to ecompose several analytical factors influencing teachers work performance into fix factors: ieology an politics; teaching quality, achievements in scientific research; works; foreign language level; workloa. These six factors are expresse as u, u 2, u 3, u 4, u 5, u 6. The evaluation factor set is: { u, u, u, u, u, u } U = () For every evaluation factor, set up four comment graes. V represents the set of comment graes V={u /excellent, u 2 /goo, u 3 / moerate, u 4 /poor} (2) Assume R isu V fuzzy relation. R ( i =,2,,6; j =,2,,4) means the possibility of the j th comment mae for the teacher with the analysis from the th i factor (expresse with ). If i is fixe, (,,, ) r r r r is a fuzzy set onv. i i2 i3 i4 It means single-factor evaluation of the teacher with the analysis from the i th factor. The multi-factor evaluation ma- 482

2 trix is: (,2,,6;,2,,4) R = r i = j = 6 4 (3) Besies, each factor inu is (,2,,6) u i =. The influence egree of each factor on the evolution result is ifferent. i Accoring to the importance, ifferent weight shoul be given. The weight must meet normalization requirement. The solving metho of the weight is as follows: Firstly, experts compare the elevation factors in pairs an write the comparison results into the matrix. In the matrix, the factor means the importance of the factor i on the factor j (expresse with non-zero positive number). The weight of each factor can be calculate with the following formula: α = i n n n j= i= Where, n means the number of factors; i means the line; j means the row. = (4) ji = = Wheni=j. The corresponing weight of each factor will consist of a fuzzy vector on the factor set, expresse as ji α an α = ( i =,2,,6) Where, 0 i 6 i. i= (,,, ) A = α α2 α6 (5) Regar R as a fuzzy converter from U to V. Corresponing comprehensive evaluation result will be gaine when a group of weight C is inputte. The comprehensive evaluation moel can be gaine through applying compoun operation of the fuzzy matrix. n Where, bj = ( αi r ) i= A R = B. is fuzzy multiplication (take the minimum); is fuzzy aition (take the maximum). Gain B * through normalization of Formula (6); in view of Formula (2), the final evaluation result for a teacher is (6) W = P V PERFORMANCE EVALUATION APPROACH Evaluation factor set is the set of evaluation inexes of high-tech research projects. Since evaluation inexes of high-tech research projects are ivie into several levels, evaluation factors have many levels. * T (7) Where, n is the number of factors in U; n is the number of factors in U. The weight of each inex is set up with the form of jugment matrix in AHP. Assume a is the importance of the inex i for the factor j (scale), expresse with the scale of -9 rows in Table. Besies, a > 0, a =/ a, a =. The jugment matrix is: 483

3 For A, square root metho is generally aopte to solve weight vectorw i. Table. -9 scales an the meanings Importance level Two factors are equally important One is slightly more important than the other One is obviously more important than the other One is strongly more important than the other One is extremely more important than the other One is slightly less important than the other One is obviously less important than the other One is strongly less important than the other One is extremely less important than the other Mi-value of 2 factors a /3 /5 /7 /9 2, 4, 6, 8, /2, /4, /6, /8 The weight set of st -level inexes w an the weight set of 2 n -level inexes w i can be gaine respectively. The relative weight of 2-level inexes can be gaine accoring to the above Formula. Where.Since experts have certain subjectivity uring scoring, complete jugment consistence cannot be reache uring the comparison in pairs. In other wors, there is evaluation error. In orer to avoi large errors, consistency check is require for the jugment matrix, i.e. calculate ranom consistency ratio (CR) of the jugment matrix. Only when CR<0., consistency of the jugment matrix is acceptable. During evaluation of high-tech research projects, in view of fuzziness an subjectivity of each inex, semantic jugment is aopte. To be more specific, there are 5-level stanars: low, relatively low, general, relatively high an high. The 5 semantic variables are expresse with interval fuzzy number, as shown in Table 2. Table 2 Evaluation set Jugment stanar Low Relatively low General Relatively high High Interval fuzzy number (0, 0.2) (0.2, 0.4) (0.4, 0.6) (0.6, 0.8) (0.8,.0) Initial interval fuzzy matrix of 2 n -level inexes constructe accoring to the comment set is Where, x is the semantic value of the i th scheme an the j th evaluation inex, an. 484

4 Stanarize X: Where Stanarization fizzy matrix of weight interval constructe accoring to the weight of the evaluation inex an initial fuzzy matrix is: Where. Fuzzy positive ieal solution (V + ) refers to the set of the maximum evaluation values selecte in each stanar item. Fuzzy negative ieal solution (V -- ) is opposite, i.e.: Where, i=, 2,, k; j=, 2,, m; I is efficiency inex; I is cost inex. The istance between each alternative scheme an fuzzy positive & negative ieal solutions is: The proximity of each scheme an the ieal solutions is: Accoring to above Formula, if C i is larger, Scheme A i further approaches ieal value. Each scheme can be sorte accoring to C i. CASE ANALYSIS A college will evaluate 3 high-tech research projects. The college invites 9 experts to evaluate high-tech research projects with the evaluation inexes an the evaluation moel. The weight of st -level inexes is confirme with AHP. The jugment matrix is: 485

5 The weight of the evaluation inexes calculate accoring to the above Formula is: The jugment matrixes of relative importance of 2 n -level inexes are: The weight of 2 n -level inexes calculate accoring to the above formula is: Through synthesizing the above weight at each level, the relative weight of 2 n -level inexes is: Evaluate 2 n -level inexes of the 3 high-tech research projects in accorance with the comment set. Interval fuzzy evaluation matrix is: 486

6 Weight stanarization interval fuzzy evaluation matrix constructe accoring to inex weight an interval fuzzy stanarization evaluation matrix is: Accoring to Formula (9) an (0), positive an negative ieal solutions of 3 2 n -level evaluation inexes in the 3 high-tech research projects are shown in Table 3. Calculate the istance between each scheme an positive & negative ieal solutions accoring to Table 2 an the above formulas: =0.29, =0.30; =0.73, =0.04; =0.2, =0.75. Accoring to the formula, the relative proximity of each scheme an ieal solution is: C =0.503; C 2 =0.374; C 3 =0.59. It can be seen from the above results that the thir high-tech research project is the best, followe by the first one. Accoring to the evaluation result, the thir high-tech research project is the preferre support object. Table 3. Positive an negative ieal solutions of 2 n -level evaluation inexes Inex A + A - 487

7 CONCLUSION In this paper, the novel performance evaluation approach to martial arts teachers is propose base on TOPSIS metho. The experimental results suggest that the propose approach is feasible an correct. Biography: Qiao-fang LIU (978- ), Female (Han Nationality), Luoyang city, Henan province, A lecturer, Jiaozuo teachers college, his research interest is Traitional sports. Yan-tao NIU (980- ), Male (Han Nationality), Luoyang city, Henan province, A lecturer, Jiaozuo teachers college, his research interest is Traitional sports. REFERENCES [] OY Aisa, Construction Management an Ec., 200, 28(5), [2] JS Shane, J. MANAGE. ENG., 2009, 25(4), [3] Lin C; Hu J; Kong XZ, Chinese Journa., 202, 35(), -5 [4] Hu CP; Deng SL, J. INTELL., 2006, 24(3), [5] L Duek, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact., 2006, 8(), -30 [6] Li XQ, J. INTELL., 200, 28(5), [7] Pang QH, Computer Engineering, 2007, 33(8), 59-6 [8] Zhou RG, Computer Engineering an Applications, 2007, 43(3), [9] Hu CP; Deng SL, J. INTELL., 2006, 24(3), [0] L Duek, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact., 2006, 8(), -30 [] Pang QH, Computer Engineering, 2007, 33(8), 59-6 [2] Zhou RG, Computer Engineering an Applications, 2007, 43(3),