Examination in Accordance with Aptitude: Selection and Optimization of Curriculum Assessment Methods in Higher Education Adapted to the Teacher–Student Game Behaviors

Abstract

The relationship between teachers and students in higher education has now developed into a game of two-way interaction, with both sides often clashing over the choice of curriculum assessment methods. Curriculum examination is a crucial factor in evaluating the quality of higher education. Additionally, it significantly impacts the fairness of education and students’ motivation to learn. To resolve such conflicts, we analyze the teacher–student game psychology using the conflict analysis method. Then, based on the overall stability of the situation, we have come to the conclusion that we need to adopt “innovative examinations”. Specific recommendations were made to teachers and students through the analysis of the results, and then the integration of the influencing factors proposed optimization strategies aimed at ensuring the fairness of the examination, based on the choice of the type of course, with reference to the reality of teachers and students, and oriented to the educational and teaching environment. We provide practical guidance for selecting and optimizing assessment methods to improve their appropriateness for individualized teacher and student needs. This promotes the process of teaching reform and helps achieve sustainable development in education.

1. Introduction

In recent years, there have been highly contentious instances of teacher–student conflicts, which have raised significant social concerns about teacher–student relationships. During higher education, teachers and students in colleges and universities interact and influence each other to form a unique interpersonal relationship [1]. This dynamic affects not only the successful completion of teaching duties, but also has a noteworthy impact on school development. Since China resumed the college entrance examination in 1978, the teacher–student relationship has undergone three stages of change. It started with the elite education stage of “teacher’s dignity” between 1978 and 1998. It then progressed to the mass education stage of “student-oriented” in 1999, until it finally evolved into the current “two-way interaction” teacher–student game relationship [2]. The term “game” in this context comes from “game theory” and refers to the process of selecting and implementing the actions of the participants according to the established rules and obtaining the corresponding results from each of them, generally showing a “confrontational” relationship similar to a game of chess, or as a verb to refer to the process of selecting and implementing the chosen behaviors. Teachers and students seemingly engage in a two-way score game, where teachers strive to access assessment scores while students aim to improve their academic performance. However, at its core, this dynamic is a transaction of knowledge and an emotional exchange influenced by the subjective consciousness of both parties. Conflicts and contradictions arise when individual interests are misaligned. For students, the primary aim of attending school is to earn credits through course evaluations to obtain a certificate of graduation and a degree. For teachers, meeting assessment scores and maintaining classroom authority are essential to effective teaching. The instructor assesses students’ course grades, while the students’ evaluation impacts the instructor’s evaluation score, creating two sides of a game. Students’ grades are evaluated by their teachers. The evaluation scores of teachers are affected by student constraints, thus forming two sides of the same game. Conflicts and contradictions arise when individual interests are not aligned. The study discovered that conflicts commonly arise in teaching activities. Specifically, curriculum assessment, which is an integral part of teaching activities, significantly affects the evaluation scores of teachers and students. The method chosen for evaluation is related to students’ motivation to learn and the teacher’s impartiality in assessing students’ performance. When teachers use assessment methods that are not applicable to the courses they teach (e.g., computer application courses only test theories) and students are dissatisfied with the methods, the problem of “assessment methods that do not fit the teacher, the students, and the course” arises, which can lead to conflicts between teachers and students.

1.1. Issues Associated with Curriculum Assessment and Selection in Higher Education for Teachers and Student

At present, assessment methods for university courses are becoming increasingly diverse, complex, and process-oriented [3]. This is particularly evident in China, where traditional exams are being transformed into innovative forms that showcase professional skills, including essays, reports, and presentations. At the same time, issues and conflicts stemming from inadequate curriculum assessment method selection persistently surface. For instance, certain students aim to pass the exam without exerting much effort. Consequently, when the evaluation method is demanding for them, they will take the exam lackadaisically. Besides affecting their own course grades, they will also develop an unfavorable perception of the instructor. This negative impression will adversely impact the assessment scores. Additionally, instances of inadequate teacher instruction occur, and while students are getting ready for exams, unreasonable assessment methods are randomly selected due to teachers’ failure to treat teaching seriously. In such cases, grades are not assessed equitably. Consequently, students will manifest their discontentment with the evaluation of teaching. They could write vindictive complaints, which will harm the reputation of the teachers. This dissension, coupled with the unsatisfactory evaluation procedure, can lead to conflicts. If not resolved and there is no intervention regarding the choice of assessment methods, the outcomes could range from demotivated students to teachers displaying apathy while instructing. Furthermore, this could even initiate trouble such as students fighting or getting expelled due to the conflict. Positive “two-way interaction” between teachers and students is seriously jeopardized, to the detriment of the school’s interests, and hinders the process of pedagogical reform and the healthy development of education. Several factors can contribute to this issue, such as the irrational choice of assessment methods, the lack of standardization and normalization of grading rules, and subjective elements in teachers’ assessment of students’ performance.

Curriculum assessment is a crucial element in teaching activities and a vital reference point for evaluating the quality of education in today’s higher education landscape. As stated by Wiggins [4], the purpose of test evaluation is to promote student learning and development [5]. However, the current courses assessment has its issues, including unreasonable evaluation methods, outdated and biased content, excessive reliance on final exams, inadequate feedback after exams, and unscientific grading methods [6,7]. The recent increase in online learning due to the implementation of closed-loop management models in universities, particularly in the last three years, is a consequence of the global outbreak of COVID-19. The unreliable network environment, substandard equipment, and individual variations in teachers’ and students’ behaviors raise concerns about the effectiveness of online exams [8]. In addition, colleges and universities have implemented “personalized education”, providing customized teaching content [9], so as to achieve “teaching in accordance with aptitude”. Curriculum assessment methods play a crucial role in teaching reform [7]. However, as it stands, the assessment methods fail to consider the individual behaviors of students or differences in teaching behaviors among teachers. As a result, there has been little change in assessment methods over the years, which goes against the principles of “personalized education”. The absence of implementation of the “examination in accordance with aptitude” has made it challenging to adapt to the requirements for training innovative talents in the current situation.

Thus, the objectives and contents of courses are continuously updated as pedagogical reforms progress. To guarantee and enhance the quality of higher education, it is imperative to establish a scientific and reasonable curriculum assessment system [10] and select the assessment method that suits it the most.

1.2. Literature Review and Gaps to Be Filled

Upon reviewing the literature related to curriculum assessment, it was observed that the research in this area concentrates on optimizing the assessment methods of a particular course [11], classifying assessment methods [12,13], and determining the focus of assessment methods [14]. For the purpose of optimizing curriculum assessment, several scholars have suggested optimizing assessment procedures by focusing on developing innovative abilities [15] and by standardizing examination management mechanisms, diversifying assessment systems, and enhancing information-based examination platforms [16]. But previous studies on curriculum assessment methods were mostly micro and localized studies, with a paucity of relevant holistic studies. Sihua Li et al. [17] also pointed out the lack of systematic thinking in curriculum assessment and evaluation, and the standardized system of curriculum assessment to be established. As the research on teacher-student games largely comprises theoretical analyses of discursive articles, it lacks empirical data to support the research. It remains confined to the research mode based on assumptions and existing theories, resulting in insufficient explanatory power. As for the research content, most articles analyze and interpret the teacher–student relationship from the perspectives of “teaching process” [18] and “students evaluation of teaching” [19,20], disregarding the correlation between them [21]. At the same time, they do not extensively study the causes of the teacher–student dyadic situation. They did not thoroughly explore the important aspect of the teaching and learning activity for study.

Addressing the existing research gaps, this study finds the equilibrium for teachers and students regarding the choice of curriculum assessment methods, not only for a particular discipline. This holistic approach to curriculum assessment establishes a basis for creating a standardized system. Secondly, this study incorporates factual information and data from reliable sources and developing models through conflict analysis, which diverges from the hypothesis-driven research model. Thirdly, we locate the curriculum assessment session, tracing back to the very beginning of the assessment choice to study the teacher–student game behaviors, and correlate the students’ “course grade” with the teachers’ “evaluation grade” to identify the root causes of conflicts between teachers and students. Finally, we propose suggestions for optimization strategies.

1.3. Research Objectives and Value

This paper takes the game behavior of teachers and students in colleges and universities as the research object and develops a conflict model resulting from the method of administering final course examinations. The aim is to arrive at an equilibrium solution for students and faculty in this context, i.e., to resolve the conflict between students and faculty over the choice of curriculum assessment methods. It then puts forward suggestions for the selection of assessment methods and optimization strategies for curriculum assessment, improves the accuracy of assessment and the achievement of goals, stimulates the learning potential of students, and achieves the assessment purpose of “promoting development through assessment”.

Usually, it is the instructor who decides on the method of assessment, and the students respond accordingly. In this case, the interaction can be seen as a dynamic game where one party makes the first move and the other responds. In order to increase students’ motivation to take the exams and to fulfill the “student-centered” teaching philosophy, teachers will also ask students in what form they would like to be assessed in the course. However, due to the fact that “many mouths cannot be harmonized”, it is ultimately up to the teachers to decide, which is the same as the general situation. Finding appropriate curriculum assessment methods that suit both the faculty and the students is a challenging decision-making task that is difficult to study quantitatively. Conflict between students and faculty in this regard involves several interrelated influencing factors that are difficult to clarify. In contrast, conflict analysis only requires minimal information about each party’s preferences to effectively analyze the situation. Therefore, considering the master–slave relationship in which the teacher has the final say while the student can only take a stance on the test, it breaks through the classical conflict analysis model, expands the application area of the conflict model, and enhances the generalization ability of the method.

In conclusion, selecting assessment methods that align with the reality of teachers and students can lead to improved student mastery of the course, enhanced professional knowledge, and increased motivation for learning. Additionally, teachers can obtain more accurate feedback on student learning outcomes and use this information to guide the development of their teaching plans and enhance their teaching skills and motivation. It enables positive interactions among students, teachers, and schools, ultimately promoting sustainable education development.

1.4. Outlining of the Structure of the Manuscript

Finally, this paper follows the structure outlined below: After introducing the conflict between teachers and students in colleges and universities regarding curriculum assessment methods, this section summarizes and categorizes existing curriculum assessment methods. It then describes the conflict analysis method based on game theory and systematic decision-making. Section 3 presents the problem scenario and analyzes and summarizes the factors influencing curriculum assessment methods. It establishes a model and performs a stability analysis. Based on the identification of the equilibrium [22,23], the analysis examines the equilibrium and detects the path of the sequentially sanctioned stability to suggest a curriculum assessment method for resolving the conflict between teachers and students. Section 5 proposes the optimization strategy based on the influencing factors of the curriculum assessment method and the ending of the model. Lastly, the entire paper is summarized and evaluated, and the future research direction is indicated.

2. Materials and Methods

Before conducting the modeling, analyze and classify the currently available methods of curriculum assessment based on their frequency of use and nature to determine the teacher’s assessment strategy. Then, provide a theoretical explanation of how the conflict analysis method can aid in selecting the curriculum assessment method. Finally, determine the flow of the teacher–student problem-solving process based on this methodology.

2.1. Curriculum Assessment Methods

Various methods of curriculum assessment are used in colleges and universities. According to Chinese scholar Gensheng Lu [24], research findings indicate that more than 50 types of assessment methods are employed by the world’s top colleges and universities. Due to the similarity of some assessment methods and the infrequent use of others, we aggregate and summarize these methods into 13 categories, as shown in

Table 1. Summary of the classification of curriculum assessment methods.

Serial No.	Assessment Methods	Features
1	Closed-book examination	The examination mainly examines basic knowledge and basic skills, and candidates are not allowed to rely on textbooks, handouts, and other materials, or talk to people through discussions, etc., and are required to complete the examination questions independently.
2	Open-book examination	Characterized by openness, flexibility, competence, and comprehensiveness, candidates are free to look at textbooks, materials, etc., but are generally required to complete the test questions independently.
3	Paper (thesis)	Assessment through writing a dissertation.
4	report	Assessment through submission of reports.
5	Mission statement	Writing proposal motions, comments, abstracts, plans, etc.
6	Practical operation	Implementing a project, completing an experiment, conducting a case study, etc., to examine the hands-on ability to apply knowledge of learning.
7	Reporting showcase	Students are assessed based on their performance in class discussions and presentations.
8	Questionnaire	A list of difficult problems based on course content that has been taught and for which the student is required to submit a complete written solution.
9	Group work	Assign tasks in small groups and students divide the work among themselves, which generally include collecting materials, recording the process, and reporting and presenting.
10	Task	Includes coursework, homework, and classroom exercises.
11	Class participation	Students are assessed through their attendance and class participation performance.
12	Continuous evaluation	Students are continuously examined and evaluated by the instructor in a course.
13	Other	Less frequently used notes, interviews, simulations, lectures, and video instruction.

.

Currently in China, over 90% of college and university courses use the combination of final examinations and process performance assessments to calculate the final grades of students. No. 1–No. 7 in Table 1 is generally reserved for final exams, while No. 8–No. 13 typically contribute to the ongoing performance assessment. Conflicts may arise between teachers and students if the exams or final grades have disproportionate weightage and are not designed taking into account the diverse capabilities and aptitudes of students, as they are typically a “one-shot” opportunity. This paper will use the final exam as an example and choose No. 1–No. 7 as the assessment form. In practice, open-book examination is commonly used as the final evaluation, but this conflicts with closed-book examination. Therefore, one must choose only one. No. 3–No. 7 is classified as innovative appraisal methods.

2.2. Theories of Conflict Analysis

2.2.1. Fundamentals

Conflict refers to a state of antagonism between two or more individuals or groups with different goals, who are fighting for their respective interests and resources. Conflict analysis is a decision-making method derived from partial and classical response theory that is used for the formal analysis of conflict problems [25]. That is, the method seeks to find an optimal solution to the conflict problem by harmonizing the contradictions of the conflicting parties. The conflict analysis method is a branch of game theory, which studies the strategic choices of rational economic individuals in their mutual interactions and is widely used in fields such as military and economics. Kilgour and Professor Hipel et al. [26] proposed the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR), known as conflict analysis, based on the improvement of classical game theory. Through modeling and analysis, GMCR systematically studies realistic conflict disputes and game rivalries, resulting in decision-making recommendations [27]. It can be applied to solve major conflict problems in the real world, including international trade disputes [28], military conflicts [29], and issues related to industrial development and environment [30]. GMCR has been increasingly used to solve decision-making problems in basic research programs across multiple fields [31,32]. The use of game theory in pedagogical research began with Hamburger H. in the late 20th century, who utilized it to analyze teacher–student interaction behavior [33].

The analysis of conflict can make the most of available information, while predicting the results of problems that are challenging to describe quantitatively, by using stability analysis. This scientific soundness ensures that the decision-making level is appropriate [34]. When selecting a method for curriculum assessment, teachers and students interact strategically and are mutually influenced, resulting in the formation of a gaming system. This system collects preference information from teachers and students to determine the priority order and ultimately identify the equilibrium solution. In other words, the teacher–student game may eventually lead to a cooperativeness equilibrium under specific conditions and remain stable for an extended period of time [34,35].

2.2.2. Procedure

The conflict analysis procedure [11], as shown in Figure 1 from the teacher–student game perspective, can be summarized in five steps. The initial step is to identify the conflict issue and describe the context in which the instructor–student conflict arose during the process of choosing a curriculum assessment method, while pinpointing the focal points, interests, and actors involved. Afterward, the analysis involves identifying decision-makers and strategy options, modeling and analyzing the preferences and courses of action of the players, teachers, and students while logically eliminating infeasible outcomes and listing feasible ones. Stability analysis is then used to determine the dynamic equilibrium outcome, which is the smooth outcome of the conflict state of affairs. Results analysis and evaluation, further logical analysis, and systematic evaluation of the results of the stability analysis are carried out in order to provide decision makers with decision-making reference information of value for use. Determine whether the results of analysis and evaluation are consistent with the actual situation and, if not, it will be fed back to the previous procedures to analyze and correct errors again, and finally make a decision.

3. Conflict Model for Selecting Assessment Methods

3.1. Problem Description

Blended teaching, both online and offline, has led to diverse assessment methods. Currently, traditional paper-based exams, open-book exams, essays, and other forms of assessment are the main ones used. The way the course is assessed influences the test-taking attitude of some students. Students who are disciplined in their learning approach maintain a positive attitude irrespective of the format and prioritize achieving good grades. While teachers make every effort to grade fairly, there are instances where grading is inaccurately or unfairly done.

Issues arise regardless of the curriculum assessment method. Traditional paper tests may lead to students relying on memorization and guesswork, resulting in inflated scores and an increased likelihood of cheating. Open-book examination, while intended to promote deeper understanding, may not effectively differentiate between highly motivated and less motivated students. Both testing approaches lack innovative guidance, save time and effort for teachers, but may fail to accurately gauge student performance. Some students may approach traditional forms of assessment such as papers and reports with a lackadaisical attitude, while teachers may exhibit unfair scoring practices such as leniency or even bias. This demonstrates a conflict where student performance is determined by exams while teacher evaluations are influenced by student performance, forming a feedback loop that can be challenging to navigate. This paper aims to address this issue and explore optimal appraisal methods. Currently, college courses commonly use the “usual + final” calculation method to determine exam results. However, the final grade still accounts for a significant proportion of the overall score. Since nearly all courses include a final exam, the term “course examination” in this text refers to that final exam.

Conflicts between teachers and students regarding assessment methods arise due to a mismatch between the curriculum assessment methods and reality. Conflict incidents are triggered by the failure to consider influencing factors thoroughly when determining the assessment methods. The assessment methods used in courses are influenced by various factors, which can be classified into four categories: student factors, teacher factors, school factors, and other factors.

Table 2. Factors affecting curriculum assessment methods.

Primary Factors	Secondary Factors	Clarification
Student	Attitude	Percentage of students who are highly motivated and those who are unmotivated to learn.
	Class performance and status	A high rate of absorption of classroom knowledge is an indication of good classroom performance.
	Specialization, type of degree	Undergraduate and graduate students (master’s/specialized/full-time/part-time), science, engineering, and arts majors.
Teacher	Teaching philosophy and experience	The most fundamental rational understanding and view of teaching and learning, arising from teaching and learning activities, and the understanding of the inner laws of the objective existence of changes in teaching and learning activities.
	Teaching content and mode	Whether the teaching program was completed, and how the content and pattern changed from previous years.
	Criteria for evaluating accountability, student achievement	Strictness or leniency and fairness in grading student performance.
	Distribution of efforts in teaching, research, etc.	Teaching focus.
University	Nature and type of higher education	University tier and level, general/specialized, undergraduate/specialized, etc.
	Talent training objectives	Research-oriented talents, skill-oriented talents, application-oriented talents.
	Examination policies and standards	Implementation of national and local education policies, examination management system, etc.
Other	Type of course	Compulsory, degree, elective, general studies, etc.
	Class time and location	Length of time, online or offline, in or out of the classroom, etc.
	Type of class	Class capacity, specialization ratio.
	Educational environment and policies	Context of the times, policies introduced by the national education department and local education boards.
	Contingency	For example, public health events such as COVID-19 and avian influenza; natural disasters such as earthquakes, storms, mudslides, etc.
	Social environment and family background	Politics, economy, culture, information, etc.

summarizes the factors that influence the assessment method.

3.2. Conflict Model of Teacher and Student Assessment Method Choices

To visualize the model, the conflict analysis diagram model was used to establish the conflict between “teachers and students on the choice of curriculum assessment methods”.

Table 3. Mapping of key components of the conflict analysis model to the teacher–student game model.

Conflict Analysis Model		Teacher-Student Game Model
Policy makers	→	The players: teachers and students
Policy options	→	Strategy, i.e., determination of the course of action of the players
Feasible state	→	Feasibility conclusion
State transfer	→	Gaming scenario change
Preference information for feasible states	→	Prioritization of feasible outcomes for teachers and students

displays how the main elements of the conflict analysis model have been aligned with the teacher–student game model [36].

Assuming both the teacher and student decide on a specific course of action. During the game, both parties integrate relevant information, select the most effective strategy, decide on an evaluation method, and determine their response approach. Formula (1) depicts the teacher–student game confrontation using the modeling elements of the conflict analysis diagram model.

G = (N, O, A, S, P)

(1)

Among them,

• N = (r, b) denotes the set of game parties, containing teacher “r” and student “b”;
• O = (O_r, O_b) denotes the set of options of the game parties, O_r = {O_r1, O_r2, …, O_rn} and O_b = {O_b1, O_b2, …, O_bm} denote the set of options of the teachers and students respectively;
• “A” denotes the teacher-student gaming rules;
• S = (S₁, S₂, S₃, …, S_w) denotes the feasible end of the game for both teachers and students;
• P = (P_r, P_b) denotes faculty and student preferences regarding the choice of curriculum assessment methods.

3.2.1. Build a Model

• Determination of point in time (T): T = (t₁, t₂, t₃, …, t_n) refers to when a disagreement arises between a student and faculty member concerning the selection of a course. It includes the first course t₁, second course t₂, third course t₃ and so on. The study examines “T” as a whole, meaning there is no differentiation between courses, and the final month or final week of the college term is used to define the time period.
• Identification of the players in the game (N): Teacher “r” and student “b” are the two sides of the game.
• Identification of action programs (O): curriculum assessment methods are selected by teachers, while students hold varying attitudes toward test-taking.

(1) Teachers O_r = {O_r1, O_r2, …, O_rn}: There are three possible courses of action, denoted by n = 3. (1) Closed-book examination (No. 1). In the context of online teaching, exams are conducted digitally with the support of platforms like Study Pass, Voov Meeting, and U Campus, featuring the electronic distribution of examination papers echoing the traditional approach of paper distribution in previous years. In offline mode, exams are administered directly and responded to uniformly within a designated time-frame. O_r1 = {Closed-book examination}; (2) Open-book examination (No. 2). At the end of the course, examination papers, unlike in the closed-book examination format, are distributed. The testing timeline is predetermined, and the exam is conducted in unison, with students providing their answers autonomously by referring to their textbooks, lecture notes, and other resources. O_r2 = {Open-book examination}; (3) Innovative examinations (No. 3–No. 7). Various methods such as papers, reports, group presentations, and others are implemented to conclude the course, depending on its features. O_r3 = {Innovative examinations}.

(2) Students O_b = {O_b1, O_b2, …, O_bm}: There are two courses of action. At once m = 2. (1) Strive to improve your performance to achieve high grades and approach exams with a constructive mindset. O_b1 = {Positive}. (2) Passive test-taking with the only objective of passing the exam. O_b2 = {Negative}.

4.

Determination of teacher-student gaming rules (A):

(1) Every teacher selects at least one assessment method. However, there could be cases in which students cannot take the exam because of illness, personal reasons, emergencies, or other reasons; hence, no action will be taken.

(2) As there is a combined form of assessment for the final exam, each course can be presented in only one of two ways, and it is not possible to choose both “O_r1” and “O_r2”.

(3) Both the teacher and the student can perceive information about the opponent’s posture. They are aware of all possible strategic options of the opponent, but they cannot determine the final course of action.

(4) Both teachers and students are rational individuals with their respective goals; teachers aim to motivate students to take the test, and students hope to be graded fairly while achieving higher grades in the course.

Figure 2 shows the above gaming rules.

Finalize the expression: Assign the value “0” to indicate that the player in the game does not take action and “1” to indicate that they take action. Denote the conclusion of the event with a decimal number (“A” represents a decimal number).

$$\mathrm{A}={\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}}\times 2^0+{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}}\times 2^1+\dots +{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}}\times 2^r-1$$

(2)

Formula (2), where x_i = 0, 1; I = 1, 2, 3, …, r; “r” is the number of courses of action for all players [37]. There are 2⁵ outcomes to this conflict event, or 32 outcomes. The “2” in “2⁵” refers to the two choices of action and inaction, and the “5” is “r = 5 “, i.e., 3 actions for teachers and 2 actions for students.

Table 4. Initial possible endings table.

	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6	S7	S8	S9	S10	S11	S12	S13	S14	S15	S16	S17	S18	S19	S20	S21	S22	S23	S24	S25	S26	S27	S28	S29	S30	S31	S32
Principals
Or1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	0
Or2	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1
Or3	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	1
Students
Ob1	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Ob2	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1

shows all possible outcomes for the initial.

3.2.2. Elimination of Infeasible Outcomes

Out of the 32 outcomes in Table 4, not all are logically or preferentially sensible and, therefore, should be excluded. According to the rules of the game, there is a choice between Or₁ and Or₂ or there also exists a situation where neither of them is chosen, i.e., the student will appear to be absent from the exam for some reason and thus will not take any action. In this conflict event, there are 15 feasible outcomes that have been rearranged and numbered to form

Table 5. Feasibility outcomes table.

	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6	S7	S8	S9	S10	S11	S12	S13	S14	S15
Principals
Or1 Closed-book Examination	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0
Or2 Open-book Examination	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0
Or3 Innovative Examinations	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	1
Students
Ob1 Active	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ob2 Negative	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0

, denoted by S = {(s₁, s₂, s₃, …, s_w), w = 15}.

In Table 5, S₁ indicates that the teacher used closed-book examination and the students were active; S₂ indicates that the teacher used closed-book examination and the students were negative; and S₃ indicates that the teacher used open-book and innovative examinations and the students responded actively to the exams. And so on.

3.2.3. Preference Vector of Different Categories of Teachers and Students (P)

A questionnaire was utilized to explore the perceptions of curriculum assessment among teachers and students. Both groups were classified into two categories based on survey results and real-life experiences.

Teachers: The issue of how college courses are assessed can be classified into two groups, based on the differences in teachers’ teaching approach and their personal values. Type Ⅰ teachers are rigorous and conscientious, setting high standards and emphasizing teaching quality. They are strict with students and can make fair evaluations of grades. Type Ⅱ teachers are known as the permissive and casual type. They tend to be lenient with students and prioritize accomplishing the task of teaching and examining. Their work also targets other areas.

Students: All students aim to pass course exams, but they can be classified into two groups based on their attitudes towards exams and desired outcomes. The first category refers to students who aim only to pass the exam and approach it perfunctorily without regard to its format. The second category consists of students who are disciplined and aim to achieve high scores. They exhibit a great initiative towards learning and intend to enhance their knowledge and expertise by taking the exam.

The questionnaire survey was conducted in an offline mode where we questioned and recorded data from teachers and students in the school. The total number of valid respondents was 68 (16 teachers and 52 students). The dimension and content of the question and answer was their hesitancy scoring (1–10) about the assessment methods, positive/negative, and absenteeism. They have been made to cognize their self attitude towards learning and teaching before questioning. The test style in the strategy options is graded by designing categories such as “very satisfied”, “satisfied”, “fair”, “dissatisfied”, and “very dissatisfied”. The data are collected through the questionnaire. After assigning scores, the average score is calculated, and the concept of “hesitancy” is introduced. Here, hesitancy is defined as an integer between 1 to 10. For a player in a department, the impact of other players’ conduct in the department is indicated by the degree of hesitation (H). In the end, we calculate the total rejection degree “H” for each possible outcome of the game for every player, then rank the preference vectors of the players based on the magnitude of “H”. This ranking allows us to obtain the preference vectors of the players in the game. The degree of hesitation of a person in the bureau towards this behavior is higher as “H”, the degree of hesitation, increases, and conversely lower as “H” decreases. Formula (3) represents the summation of these “h”s:

$${\mathrm{H}}_{\mathrm{j}}={\displaystyle \sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{h}}_{\mathrm{i}}(\mathrm{i}=1,2,3,\dots ,\mathrm{n};“\mathrm{j}”\mathrm{denotes}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{feasible}\mathrm{outcome})}$$

(3)

From the teachers’ perspective, student engagement during exams is desirable. Additionally, teachers aim to prevent absenteeism and truancy during any type of exam, which could increase their workload and negatively impact students’ academic progress. Therefore, the value of teacher hesitancy is presented in

Table 6. Teachers’ hesitancy takes.

Type I Teachers	Closed-book examination	Open-book examination	Innovative examinations	Closed-book and innovative	Open-book and innovative
	6	7	1	3	5
Students’ Option	Not taking the examination	Active participation in examinations	Negative participation in examinations
	9	1	8
Type II Teachers	Closed-book examination	Open-book examination	Innovative examinations	Closed-book and innovative	Open-book and innovative
	5	3	1	9	7
Students’ Option	Not taking the examination	Active participation in examinations	Negative participation in examinations
	9	1	2

.

From the students’ perspective, one group prefers higher grades while the other prefers a greater differentiation of questions and stricter and fairer grading from teachers. The first group desires to pass the test with minimal effort.

Table 7. Students’ hesitancy takes.

Type I Students	Not taking the examination	Active participation in examinations	Negative participation in examinations
	9	3	2
Teachers’ Option	Closed-book examination	Open-book examination	Innovative examinations	Closed-book and innovative	Open-book and innovative
	7	1	3	8	5
Type II Students	Not taking the examination	Active participation in examinations	Negative participation in examinations
	10	1	9
Teachers’ Option	Closed-book examination	Open-book examination	Innovative examinations	Closed-book and innovative	Open-book and innovative
	3	8	4	1	6

displays the values of the students’ hesitancy.

We calculated the total hesitancy “Hj” for each possible conclusion, and

Table 8. Total hesitancy of “type I teachers”.

Feasibility Outcomes	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6	S7	S8	S9	S10	S11	S12	S13	S14	S15
Hesitancy	7	14	6	13	4	11	8	15	2	9	15	14	12	16	10

,

Table 9. Total hesitancy of “type II teachers”.

Feasibility Outcomes	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6	S7	S8	S9	S10	S11	S12	S13	S14	S15
Hesitancy	6	7	8	9	10	11	4	5	2	3	14	16	18	12	10

,

Table 10. Total hesitancy of “type I students”.

Feasibility Outcomes	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6	S7	S8	S9	S10	S11	S12	S13	S14	S15
Hesitancy	10	9	8	7	12	11	4	3	6	5	16	14	17	10	12

and

Table 11. Total hesitancy of “type II students”.

Feasibility Outcomes	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6	S7	S8	S9	S10	S11	S12	S13	S14	S15
Hesitancy	4	12	7	15	2	10	9	17	5	13	13	16	11	18	14

show, in order, type Ⅰ teachers, type Ⅱ teachers, type Ⅰ students, type Ⅱ students.

The teachers aim to select rigorous and innovative assessment methods to identify students with high academic potential and positive learning attitudes. They prioritize O_r3, O_r1, and O_r2 decision-making approaches while keeping efficiency in mind. To achieve this, adopting a scientific examination format is considered the best option. Therefore, among the suggested strategies, S₉, S₁₀, and S₁₅ are better choices than S₅, S₆, S₁₃, S₃, S₄, S₁₂, S₁, S₂, S₁₁, S₇, S₈, and S₁₄. The least desirable ones are S₇, S₈, and S₁₄. The priorities of the suggested strategies are as follows: S₉, S₁₀, S₁₅, S₅, S₆, S₁₃, S₃, S₄, S₁₂, S₁, S₂, S₁₁, S₇, S₈, and S₁₄. The least desirable strategies are S₇, S₈, and S₁₄. Strategies related to avoiding taking the test are ranked according to their degree of hesitancy and placed at the end of the prioritized order. Then, the overall degree of hesitancy is combined and the final prioritized order is determined by arranging the strategies in ascending order as follows: S₉ > S₅ > S₃ > S₁ > S₇ > S₁₀ > S₆ > S₄ > S₂ > S₈ > S₁₅ > S₁₃ > S₁₂ > S₁₁ > S₁₄.

They are more willing to adopt innovative exam formats, such as essays and reports, that simplify task administration and reduce assessment time. Open-book examination is the next preferred format, with decision-making preferences of O_r3, O_r2, and O_r1. When compared, strategies S₉, S₁₀, and S₁₅ are preferred over S₇, S₈, and S₁₄ and even better than S₁, S₂, and S₁₁. S₃, S₄, and S₁₂ are less preferred, while S₅, S₆, and S₁₃ are the least preferred. Teachers are more forgiving with students, but still want students to complete the assessment. Therefore, the final prioritization order is S₉ > S₁₀ > S₇ > S₈ > S₁ > S₂ > S₃ > S₄ > S₅ > S₆ > S₁₅ > S₁₄ > S₁₁ > S₁₂ > S₁₃.

Their decision preferences are O_r5 and O_r4, and it is in their best interest to pass the exams with ease and achieve high scores. Therefore, strategies S₂, S₄, S₆, S₈, and S₁₀ are preferred over S₁, S₃, S₅, S₇, and S₉, and even more so over S₁₁, S₁₂, S₁₃, S₁₄, and S₁₅. Open-book examination is the easiest to pass, followed by innovative forms of exams, and lastly, traditional exams. When facing a situation with a missing exam, students regret taking the form of examination they expected to adopt the most. Therefore, the strategies with the highest degree of hesitation should be given a higher priority. The final priority order is as follows: S₈ > S₇ > S₁₀ > S₉ > S₄ > S₃ > S₂ > S₁ > S₆ > S₅ > S₁₃ > S₁₁ > S₁₂ > S₁₅ > S₁₄.

Type II students has a positive attitude towards all types of exams. Therefore, strategies S₁, S₃, S₅, S₇, and S₉ are preferable to S₂, S₄, S₆, S₈, and S₁₀. They are also more suitable than S₁₁, S₁₂, S₁₃, S₁₄, and S₁₅, especially if the exam is in the form of final essays, reports, etc. This type of exam is more likely to allow the second group of students to perform at their level. However, they are also concerned about perfunctory exams, which may lead to unfair score differentiation. They would prefer traditional exams in this scenario as they are interested in widening the score gap and obtaining more knowledge. Therefore, they are not willing to adopt open-book examination. The same rules for ranking apply for the type II students in case of missing exams, as described above for the first category of students. Therefore, the prioritization order of the final strategy for the Type II students is as follows: S₅ > S₁ > S₉ > S₃ > S₇ > S₆ > S₂ > S₁₀ > S₄ > S₈ > S₁₄ > S₁₂ > S₁₅ > S₁₁ > S₁₃.

3.3. Stability Analysis

Stability analysis is essential for resolving conflicts by reaching an equilibrium state that satisfies all decision-makers [38]. The concept of stability rests on the premise of rational decision-making, which assumes that when presented with two alternative scenarios that result in divergent outcomes, an individual will choose the course of action that leads to the more advantageous result and continue to improve towards even greater benefits, which is denoted by the term “unilateral improvement (UI)”. An outcome is considered stable for a player if changing their strategy would result in an irrational choice, meaning that they would end up with a less favorable outcome. Each situation is designated with a letter: sequentially sanctioned stable (s), rational stable (R), and unstable (U). The objective of the stability analysis is to identify the “equilibrium (E)” in the teacher–student game, where the interests of both parties are no longer in extreme opposition. Figure 3 [39] illustrates the procedure for conducting stability analysis of the insider “i” in the conflict.

In Figure 3, “i” and “j” are the players, if “i” refers to the teacher, then “j” refers to the student. “q” is the initial ending of i (i.e., the 15 endings mentioned in the previous section, S₁, S₂, …, S₁₅, line 5 in

Table 12. Stability analysis of “type I teachers” and “type I students”.

Players	Outcome Number
	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6	S7	S8	S9	S10	S11	S12	S13	S14	S15
Preference Vector
Type I Teachers	R	s	s	s	s	R	u	u	u	u	R	u	u	u	u
	9	5	3	1	7	10	6	4	2	8	15	13	12	11	14
		9	9	9	9		10	10	10	10		15	15	15	15
			5	5	5			6	6	6			13	13	13
				3	3				4	4				12	12
					1					2					11
Type I Students	R	s	R	u	R	s	R	s	R	u	u	u	u	u	u
	8	7	10	9	4	3	2	1	6	5	13	11	12	15	14
		8		10		4		2		6	6	2	4	10	8
											5	1	3	9	7
Stability Analysis
Type I Teachers	s	u	s	u	s	u	s	u	R	R	u	u	u	u	R
Type I Students	s	R	s	R	u	R	s	R	u	R	u	u	u	u	u
	E		E				E			E

and

Table 13. Stability analysis of “type II teachers” and “type II students”.

Players	Outcome Number
	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6	S7	S8	S9	S10	S11	S12	S13	S14	S15
Preference Vector
Type II Teachers	R	R	u	u	u	u	u	u	u	u	R	u	u	u	u
	9	10	7	8	1	2	3	4	5	6	15	14	11	12	13
			9	10	9	10	9	10	9	10		15	15	15	15
					7	8	7	8	7	8			14	14	14
							1	2	1	2				11	11
									3	4					12
Type II Students	R	R	R	R	R	u	u	u	u	u	u	u	u	u	u
	5	1	9	3	7	6	2	10	4	8	14	12	15	11	13
						5	1	9	3	7	8	3	9	1	5
											7	4	10	2	6
Stability Analysis
Type II Teachers	u	u	u	u	u	u	u	u	R	R	u	u	u	u	R
Type II Students	R	u	R	u	R	u	R	u	R	u	u	u	u	u	u
									E

), “q′” is the UI of “q”.

First determine whether the preference order of the type II teachers and the type II students have unilateral improvements, respectively, and if they do not, note “R”, i.e., a player in a particular game has the best choice of outcome when the strategies of the other players in the game are unchanged, there is no unilateral improvement, and the rational outcome is stable [40].

There is no conflict between the type I teachers and the type II students because of the similarity of interests and the unity of goals; similarly, there is no conflict between the type II teachers and the type I students. Since type I teachers have a serious attitude towards teaching and are rigorous and conscientious, type II students are highly motivated to learn. Teachers will think about the development of students, and students respect the teachers, both of which have the common goal of improving learning ability to consolidate the knowledge learned, so there is no conflict. Similarly, type II teachers and type I students want to be lazy, pay the least effort to achieve a win-win situation, and since the two have the same goal, there is no conflict. Then, there are two types of conflicts: one is between the type I teachers and the type I students, and the other is between the type II teachers and the type II students. The stability analysis tables for the two types of conflicts are listed separately (Table 12 and Table 13), and the next procedure is carried out: a player makes a unilateral improvement to the outcome, for which the other players can target to change their strategies to form a new outcome, which is worse for the player seeking unilateral improvement, so that the group stops the unilateral improvement of a player, which is stable and denoted by “s”. The stability analysis table for the two types of conflicts is shown in Table 12 and Table 13, respectively. If at least one of the unilateral improvements in a particular outcome by a player does not produce a subsequent sanction, then that outcome is unstable, denoted by “u”. After analyzing the stability of all the outcomes of the players, it is concluded that if a certain outcome is either “r” or “s” for both sides of the conflict, then this outcome is an equilibrium solution, denoted by “E” [41]. Table 12 is the table of the results of the stability analysis for the type I teachers and the type I students, and Table 13 is the table of the results of the stability analysis for the type II teachers and the type II students.

Row 5 of Table 12 shows the ranked action preferences of type I teachers (results from Table 8), and similarly, row 11 shows the ranked action preferences of type I students (results from Table 10). After the preferences are arranged in order, for example, for type I teachers, “9, 5, 3, 1, 7” is a set of endings according to the students’ action strategies, and the later endings can be improved to the earlier ones. The UI of “5” is “9”, while for type I students, the UI of “9” is “10”. The UI of “10” for type I teachers is later than that of “5” and there is no UI, so “5” for type I teachers is “s”.

The equilibrium solution to the first pair of conflicts between the type I teachers and the type I students is the strategy S₁, S₃, S₇, S₁₀, i.e., teachers use closed-book examination and students are active in taking the exams; students are also active in taking the exams when they use a combination of open-book examination and innovative examinations; students’ attitudes are positive when they use open-book examination; and students’ attitudes are perfunctory when they use innovative forms such as essays and reports alone. The combination of “open-book examination” and “innovative examination” is also taken by the students; the attitude of the students is positive when the open-book examination is taken; and the attitude of the students is perfunctory when the innovative examination is taken in the form of essays, reports, etc., alone.

The second balanced solution to the conflict is the strategy S₉, i.e., the use of innovative forms such as essays, reports, etc., and students’ attitudes are positive.

In Table 12 and Table 13, unilateral improvement (UI) for each outcome indicates that students (teachers) can obtain a better outcome by unilaterally changing their strategies, assuming that teachers’ (students’) strategies remain unchanged. For example, for outcome S₅ in Table 12, under the assumption that the strategies of type I students remain unchanged, type I teachers can unilaterally change their strategy from using both “closed-book examination” and “innovative examinations” to using only “innovative examinations”. The result is an improvement of S₉, which is a better outcome for type I teachers than S₅. Three types exist on this basis.

• Rational stable.

In this case, the teacher (or student) is stabilized when the student’s (or teacher’s) strategy is unchanged, the outcome is the best choice, there is no unilateral improvement (UI), and the rational outcome is stable. As in Table 12 and Table 13, outcomes 9, 10, and 15 are rational for type I and type II teachers; outcomes 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are rational for type I students; and outcomes 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are rational for type II students.

• Sequentially sanctioned stable.

The teacher or student makes a unilateral improvement (UI) to the outcome, for which the other player can target a change in strategy to form a new outcome that is worse for the player in the board seeking the unilateral improvement, thus preventing a unilateral improvement by a particular player in the board, and the outcome is stable. Denoted by s in the stability analysis; for example, in Table 12, type I teachers unilaterally improve from S₃ to S₉. S₉ is an unsatisfactory outcome for type I students, type I students target an improvement to S₁₀, which is a worse outcome for type I teachers than S₃, and the improvement of type I teachers from S₃ to S₉ is sanctioned by type I students subsequently. Thus, outcome S₃ is stable for type I teachers. Similarly, for type I students, outcome S₇ is unilaterally improvable in their preference vector, but is subsequently sanctioned by type I teachers in the stability analysis, so all of the above outcomes are also stable for type I students.

• Unstable.

An outcome is unstable if at least one of the unilateral improvements in a particular outcome of the innings does not produce a subsequent sanction. This is denoted by u in the stability analysis, e.g., in Table 13 the type II students improve from S₁₀ to S₉, and S₉ is rational for the type II teachers, so S₁₀ is unstable for the type II students. Outcomes S₁ to S₈ and S₁₁ to S₁₄ are unstable for the type II teachers, and the type II teachers can improve to outcomes S₉, S₁₀, and S₁₅ so that his or her preference is improved without being sanctioned by the type II students. Outcomes S₂, S₄, S₆, S₈, and S₁₀ to S₁₅ are unstable for type II students and can be unilaterally improved to outcomes S₁, S₃, S₅, S₇, and S₉.

After analyzing the stability of all the outcomes of the classified teachers and students, it is considered that if a certain outcome is “r” or “s” for both teachers and students, then this outcome is an equilibrium (E). In the game between the first type of teachers and the first type of students, there are four equilibrium S₁, S₃, S₇, S₁₀; in the game between the type II teachers and the type II students, the equilibrium is S₉. In summary, the total equilibrium of the teachers and the students for the way of course exams are to use innovative examinations such as essays, presentations, and group work.

Table 14. Results of conflict model for selecting assessment methods.

	Results Number (Si)	Implications of the Results
Type II Teachers vs. Type II Students	S1	Teacher: closed-book examination; Students: active
	S3	Teacher: open-book examination and innovative examinations; Students: active
	S7	Teacher: open-book examination; Students: active
	S10	Teacher: innovative examinations; Students: negative
Type II Teachers vs. Type II Students	S9	Teacher: innovative examinations; Students: active
Final Result	Innovative examinations

summarizes the model results for the two types of conflicts.

4. Model Results Analysis and Suggestions

4.1. Model Results Analysis

The stability analysis above suggests that for type I teachers and type I students, the equilibrium is achieved by implementing S₁, S₃, S₇, and S₁₀. Generally, when teachers are strict and students are not motivated, the rigorous teaching attitude of teachers hinders satisfactory academic performance and creates a conflict between teachers and students. This eventually affects the evaluation score of the teaching. When implementing S₁, students generally take the closed-book examination seriously and follow a fixed pattern. S₃ involves an open-book examination and innovative examinations to increase the student’s pass rate, resulting in students actively taking the test. With S₇, there is no need to examine the memorization of knowledge, which will be very favorable to the lack of initiative in learning, which in turn helps students to actively cope with the examination. In general, S₁₀ avoids the failure of the course. Typically, adopting S₁₀ ensures no failures, but strict teachers tend to have high differentiation for grading to achieve the examination purpose. As a result, type I students may deal with the examination perfunctorily. The outcomes mentioned above are equilibrium for type I teachers and type I students.

S₉ is the overall grading policy for the type II teachers and type II students, and it is observed that teachers of this type are less strict in grading and tend to put in less effort. This may result in a superficial evaluation that may not accurately reflect the actual learning outcome of the students. Students who are highly motivated may perceive this policy as unfair, which could lead to a conflict between teachers and students. S₉ allows teachers to allocate less effort in grading, which results in an easier grading system for students. This seems to balance the expectations of both types of teachers and students.

From a holistic perspective, most teachers aim to provide fair and impartial grading in course assessments, while also striving to increase student motivation in higher education. To align with the trend of education reform, it is ideal for teachers to employ innovative examination formats, like essays and reports. And students display a positive attitude towards learning and are active in completing their tasks. Upon completion of a challenging task, students achieve satisfactory results and acquire a considerable amount of knowledge, which helps in deepening their understanding of the program and improving their professionalism. However, the use of this format will inevitably result in some students taking the exam in a perfunctory manner, a teacher with years of experience and in-depth knowledge can still provide a relatively objective evaluation. If a student disputes a grade, say, when a student who completes higher quality work receives the same grade as a student with weaker quality work, the student has the option to take action or report the teacher’s assessment through the established procedures. As a result of this restrictive relationship, the parties involved in the conflict achieve a state of overall balance. Effective teaching by educators has led to improved student expertise, elevating the standard of higher education across disciplines and furthering the progress of education reform in colleges and universities.

4.2. Suggestions

Specific improvements to the above equilibrium solution will be suggested below:

According to the stability analysis results presented in Table 12, S₁₀ does not provide any unilateral improvements (UI) for either type I teachers or type I students. This implies that rigorous and conscientious teachers opt for innovative assessment methods that they believe can enhance students’ abilities the most. However, students lacking motivation still take exams perfunctorily. This kind of outcome, though stable, fails to serve the assessment’s intended purpose and obstructs the school’s development. Therefore, the reasons behind this should be addressed at the root of the ideology that enhances students’ learning awareness. Furthermore, for the equilibrium S₁, S₃, and S₇ presented in Table 12, type I teachers experience UI. They can unilaterally improve student attitudes towards exams (by switching the first choice to innovative examinations). As a consequence, type I students’ attitudes towards exams shift from positive to perfunctory, and the type I teachers become the final authority. Thus, the focus should be on identifying the inadequacies in assessing the course in a way that can help students maintain a positive attitude. The following are some specific suggestions:

(1) Improving students’ awareness of learning and adjusting their attitudes towards learning can have a positive impact on their performance in examinations. In order to clarify the purpose and motivation of learning and to foster students’ desire to learn, the teacher’s classroom lectures should be inspiring and motivational.

(2) Assessment methods for a course should be based on the actual situation. They should take into account the students’ performance in the classroom, as well as the characteristics of the course. Pursuing innovation should not be the priority.

(3) Simplifying final exams does not help improve students’ mental well-being or their ability to handle difficulties. While implementing process-oriented assessment, it is important not to undermine the significance of final exams. Final exams should have a positive effect by turning the situation around and improving students’ learning efficiency and potential during the final stretch of their academic journey.

(4) Student frustration and resilience should be considered. Passing rates should not be reduced and students should not be unduly burdened by excessively difficult exams. An exam that solely consists of difficult questions is pointless; instead, an exam that allows students to improve themselves is valuable.

Table 13 presents stability analysis results where S₉ is identified as the equilibrium solution. The teacher who employs tolerance in teaching employs innovative exams as an assessment method, and highly motivated students are expected to actively participate in them. Despite the stability of this result, teacher-assessed grades may be inflated or homogeneous, losing their significance in selecting talented students based on their aptitude. Consequently, correcting the teaching attitude of such teachers should be the focus of improvement, as suggested below:

(1) To enhance the quality of education, schools should adjust the weighting of scores attributed to teachers in the annual appraisal, based on factors such as political, ideological, and moral qualities, educational and teaching abilities, attendance, and awards. In particular, the rules for the educational and teaching abilities section should be revised. To avoid inflated scores and low scores for all teachers, the highest standard should not be based solely on students’ scores in school exams. To ensure a more accurate and timely assessment of student learning, it is suggested to shorten the assessment cycle for teachers. Additionally, teachers should be urged to record students’ learning and tests in a process-oriented manner. To facilitate a fair and consistent mode of assessment, an application system should be established. This system allows school personnel to assess the appropriateness of the mode of assessment and requires teachers to submit the details of the marking of each quiz or examination.

(2) Develop incentives for the assessment of teaching competence, such as bonuses or prizes or promotions for teachers with good teaching attitudes and competence. Teachers will work harder toward their goals for rewards, resulting in positive feedback. In addition, lectures and exchanges on themes related to the growth of teachers have been organized in order to make “all for the sake of the students” take root in people’s minds and enhance their awareness of the need to do a good job in teaching.

(3) The aim of the educational activities is to encourage students to reduce their emphasis on utilitarianism and to avoid relying solely on the “points-only theory” when growing up and achieving success.

In summary, addressing teacher–student conflict requires effort from both parties: teachers should enhance their teaching and enthusiasm, and further standardize test scoring to ensure a fair evaluation of each student. Students should increase their enthusiasm and take initiative to improve their professionalism. Schools should collaborate with both teachers and students to avoid succumbing to the “prisoner’s dilemma” during teaching.

5. Discussion and Optimization Strategies

The results above show that essays, reports, designs, lectures, and other innovative assessment methods could help to mediate the teacher–student conflict. However, even with these methods, practical issues may still negatively impact students during the implementation process. The fairness of the examination still needs improvement and other problems need to be addressed. The curriculum assessment methods and the teacher–student fitness are yet to reach their highest potential. Therefore, to optimize the existing assessment methods, we should consider the actual situation of the teachers and students. Consequently, to improve the existing assessment methods, we should optimize them according to the actual situation of teachers and students. Regarding the stability of “s” in the conflict model results, the school could take certain measures to improve the situation. Additionally, the influence factors of curriculum assessment selection should be taken into account, and the content and results of these two perspectives should be linked to provide further optimization suggestions for the curriculum assessment methods.

Table 12 shows that for type I teachers with preference priority order S₅, S₃, S₁, and S₇, outcomes S₁, S₃, S₅, and S₇ correspond to punishment (s). Therefore, it is enough to study the stability of punishment (s) for outcome S₇ in this case. Type I teachers’ individual improvement from outcome S₇ to S₉ results in an unsatisfactory outcome for type I students. In response, type I students aim for improvement to outcome S₁₀, which is even worse for type I teachers than outcome S₇. Consequently, type I teachers’ improvement from outcome S₇ to S₉ is met with subsequent sanction by type I students, just as unilateral improvement from outcome S₇ to S₅, S₃, or S₁ by type I teachers is met with subsequent sanction by type I students. For the type I students, the s outcomes are achieved at S₁, S₃, and S₇. When the type I students unilaterally improve from S₇ to S₈, this is viewed unsatisfactorily by the type I teachers. The type I teachers aims for the improvement to come at S₁₀ (S₆, S₄, S₂), even though it is even worse for type I students than the S₇ outcome. When the type I students improve from S₇ to S₈, the type I teachers respond with a subsequent sanction. Similarly, if a unilateral improvement moves from S₃ to S₄ or from S₁ to S₂, the type I teachers will apply a subsequent sanction. A type II teacher and a type II student do not have “s” outcomes. Figure 4 represents how the following optimization strategies are obtained.

5.1. Aiming to Ensure the Fairness of the Examination, Increasing Teacher and Student Motivation

Universities, as outsiders to the teacher–student game, have responded to the initiative of personalized education in order to keep up with the development process of education and teaching reform. By taking relevant measures, improving the management regulations for teachers and students, and introducing new education and teaching methods and regulations to optimize the management of curriculum assessment, we have explored a standardized system of curriculum assessment methods. The aim is to realize “testing in accordance with aptitude” on the basis of “teaching in accordance with aptitude” and to cultivate more innovative talents needed by the country and the society.

As a result of the non-existence of “s” between the type II teachers and the type II students, the university needs to introduce new management and assessment methods to monitor the teachers’ teaching and research activities. This includes streamlining the teaching evaluation process, establishing appropriate rewards and penalties. In order to facilitate a change in the second type of teachers’ attitudes towards instruction and course evaluation to resemble that of the first type of teachers, the university must prioritize the students’ well-being, implement methods to encourage innovative thinking, and facilitate a transition from traditional “knowledge-based” to competency-based evaluation methods. This will provide a more accurate reflection of students’ true level of learning and ultimately enhance their comprehensive skills. If the teacher’s initial strategy is S₇, the improvement path is S₇ → S₁ → S₃ → S₅ → S₉, as inferred from the results of the conflict model’s stability analysis. The teacher changes the strategy from an “open-book” examination to a “closed-book test” when moving from S₇ to S₁; the strategy is further improved when moving from S₁ to S₃. The strategy was upgraded at S₁ → S₃, from using only “open-book” examination to a combination of both “open-book” and “innovative examinations”. The teacher then changed the strategy to exclusively use “closed-book” examination at S₃ → S₅. The strategy was changed to a combination of “closed-book” and “innovative examinations” at S₃ → S₅, and finally improved to solely using “innovative examinations” at S₅ → S₉. At S₅ → S₉, the strategy was finally improved by adopting “innovative examination”. The students’ sanctioning of each step in the teacher’s strategy improvement path was “positive → perfunctory”, and the change in the students’ attitude towards taking the test depended on their satisfaction with the chosen assessment method. Schools should correct students’ misconceptions that they are not to feel dissatisfied, withdrawn, or negative due to the increased challenge of the test. Furthermore, students should avoid taking the test perfunctorily under the belief that more effort is required. Simultaneously, schools should improve their curriculum assessment rules by delegating appropriate authority to teachers, enabling them to develop their own assessment methods based on real-world situations. Schools should also require teachers to establish marking criteria for assessments and ensure strict compliance. Additionally, the rule that grades are subject to normal distribution is not applicable to certain top or extreme grades classes with poorer grades and should, therefore, be changed.

The type and nature of a school influence its curriculum assessment method. First-class schools worldwide and domestic double first-class schools usually have more standardized and comprehensive assessment systems. Therefore, while optimizing assessment methods, we should use such institutions as excellent examples and combine their features with those of our school to design a complete assessment system. The school’s curriculum assessment management should align with its objectives. For instance, for training research-oriented talents, the focus can be on thesis, reports, etc. For training skill-oriented talents, practical-oriented approaches can be implemented. For training applied talents, a mix of theory and practice is useful, and internships can also be included in assessments. Additionally, all the standards and management methods formulated by the school on curriculum assessment should align with national and local policies issued by the Ministry of Education and comply with the relevant examination management system. In conclusion, the school should prioritize ensuring fairness in curriculum assessment and enhancing students’ learning motivation to optimize the assessment method.

5.2. Selection Based on Course Type, Implementation of a Process-Oriented Appraisal System

Courses of varying types and natures should adopt suitable assessment methods. In world-class universities, writing courses commonly use essay-based assessments. Practical courses generally adopt program design assignments and two examinations as assessment methods. Case-based courses usually involve presenting case problems along with final examinations. Public and professional foundation courses employ a variety of assessment methods that typically include exams, homework assignments, oral presentations, and classroom participation. Chinese colleges and universities categorize their courses into different types, which include basic mandatory courses (such as instrumental, civics, and general education courses), professional degree courses, elective courses, and physical education courses. Not all courses are suitable for innovative assessment methods such as course papers, reports, and designs. As an illustration, traditional paper-based exams are still optimal for courses on subjects such as English, higher mathematics, and other instrumental subjects. Test questions should be competency-oriented, incorporate flexible and innovative formats, and update the question bank on a timely basis. Recently, colleges and universities have employed a hybrid mode of teaching civics and politics courses, combining online and offline approaches via platforms like China University MOOC. Furthermore, practical components have been added, including shooting short videos, acting in group skits, and volunteering, which integrate theory and practice, leading to a more scientific and reasonable method of assessment [42]. Degree programs and General Studies should align with the characteristics of each discipline. The assessment stage can include flipped classrooms, course design, portfolios, and other forms of “big homework”, in addition to papers and reports. However, to ensure fairness, grading standards must be set according to the specific assessment methods and enforced strictly in an innovation-oriented approach. Physical education courses should also include the assessment of theoretical knowledge while examining physical fitness, so as to make the evaluation more comprehensive and systematic.

Each course should create appropriate evaluation standards for grading based on the chosen assessment methods. The weight of each assessment method should be distributed reasonably. As the reformation of teaching courses in colleges and universities intensifies, it must consider the principles of accuracy, fairness, and scientific in grading assessments. The final examination proportion must be decreased while gradually enhancing the “process-oriented assessment” system. For instance, fundamental obligatory courses and professional degree courses include various components like performance assessment. The examination usually comprises 40–75% of the total grade, whereas homework or assignments account for 10–20%, and oral reports and classroom participation contribute to 10–20% and 5–10%, respectively. Currently, certain courses in colleges and universities have started to trial “process-oriented assessment”, which has been successful in enhancing the quality of teaching and learning, motivating students to have a deeper interest in learning and meeting the requirements for training application-oriented professional talents. For example, the process-oriented assessment of Shanghai University of Applied Sciences’ S7-1200 PLC control system course has shown promising results [43]. To conclude, the final examination’s percentage should be decreased, and the focus should be on process-oriented assessment and formative assessment.

5.3. Using the Reality of Teachers and Students as a Reference, Specific Issues Are Analyzed on a Case-by-Case Basis

The above classification is based on teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards teaching and exams respectively. When the first teacher type has more than 70% students of the first type, it is not advisable to use thesis, report, or other forms of end-of-curriculum assessment. According to the model, the students have a positive attitude towards open-book examinations, suggesting that questions can be changed to more guided and flexible expository papers. With regards to the teaching activities of the second type of teachers, the school should enhance teacher enthusiasm by optimizing their teaching assessments and raising the requirements for scientific research, among other factors. If a larger proportion of the students in the class belong to the second type, process and formative assessments [44] are more appropriate. Additionally, they should differentiate and diversify the form and content of assessments in each class to raise both teacher and student enthusiasm.

Various factors influence the choice of assessment methods, including the class type, the number of students, the proportion of students in different majors, the teaching content, and the students’ conditions during class—for example, in the management information system course, a class of approximately 100 students with three majors, including two general education categories. Here, teachers can assign targeted tasks to students according to their majors during the assessment process. If students are in poor condition during class, a “flipped classroom” assessment form can improve their attention. In this form, students who need to study the course in depth can explain more difficult chapters, while others can learn easier content. This approach can achieve a tailored assessment approach to meet the needs of the students. Regarding the final examination, due to the number of classes, traditional examination papers can be used. Additionally, another evaluation method, such as machine practice, can be added to assess according to the course.

5.4. Orientation to the Educational and Teaching Environment, Updating and Optimizing Curriculum Assessment Methods

During emergency situations, the assessment method is changed in a passive manner. In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a surge in online teaching. The shift to online classes has impacted the content, duration, and location of lectures. As a result, it has limited the assessment methods available for evaluation. Offline traditional assessment should be adapted to online assessment [45]. Poor network connectivity, equipment-related challenges, and difficulty with supervision can lead to inaccurate evaluation results. Moreover, final exams usually contribute to 60% or more of the total grade. To optimize assessment, the proportion of final exams should be reduced while the number of stage assessments is increased scientifically. This approach will ensure more accurate assessment content, fairer teacher grading, and a stronger focus from students towards the evaluations.

To improve the evaluation of the quality of education, universities will take the initiative to explore assessment methods that are better suited to development, guided by educational policies and talent cultivation objectives. We need to keep exploring new forms of curriculum assessment and set up teaching links scientifically and rationally. This will help highlight problem awareness and motivate students. For instance, universities should use more essay-type exams and assign “big assignments” tailored to each professional field, such as developing small programs, modeling, engineering design drawings, and video works, to assess students’ application of knowledge and practical skills. To ensure a relatively fair assessment, teachers and students should work together to explore the problems. After obtaining a sense of accomplishment and learning motivation, students can present their results in the classroom.

6. Conclusions

This study examines the selection of curriculum assessment methods and adaptation of teacher–student behavior through the lens of the teacher–student game. Our aim is to integrate the existing information to build a conflict model to obtain a global stable situation and to propose suggestions and strategies based on the equilibrium solution and the operation path of the punitive ending, which can improve the accuracy of the examination and stimulate students’ motivation on the basis of resolving the conflict between teachers and students.

While a diverse range of assessment methods may be preferable to solely using traditional exams, the study discovered that increased diversity corresponds with greater options and increased incidents of conflict between teachers and students. In this paper, we utilize a conflict model to determine a resolution for the conflict between teachers and students arising from the selection of curriculum assessment methods. The equilibrium for the type I teachers and the type I students are S₁, S₃, S₇, and S₁₀. For the type II teachers and the type II students, the equilibrium is S₉. Achieving global stability can be accomplished through the implementation of innovative exam methods, such as essays and reports. After analyzing the above equilibrium, targeted recommendations are made in terms of students’ awareness of learning, teachers’ attitude and ability to teach, and school supervision and regulation. Finally, by combining the curriculum assessment methods’ influencing factors with the model’s results, this study proposes an optimization strategy from a global perspective. The goal is to ensure fairness in the examination while improving the motivation of teachers and students. This can be achieved by selecting the course type as the basis for the assessment system and implementing a process-oriented approach. Furthermore, it is essential to consider the real situation of teachers and students, analyze specific problems, and take the educational and teaching environment into account to update and optimize the assessment methods. Then, with the guidance of the overall optimization strategy, we can choose assessment methods that are highly adaptable to the behaviors of teachers and students based on the model results. This enables us to address the issues of fixed exam content, single exam format, and insufficient exam feedback, ultimately achieving the goal of assessment.

In addition, in the course of the study, it was found that teachers and students have different attitudes towards teaching and learning, then they have different attitudes towards curriculum assessment, so they were each divided into two categories, and the two combinations were filtered out to constitute a conflict between the two combinations for modeling. In this paper, although the equilibrium solution is achieved through constructing the model and suggesting targeted strategies, it is necessary to refine the model to increase the number of action items with the growing frequency of various assessment methods and depth of teaching reform. In the preference analysis section, a more scientific and rational method should be pursued to obtain the most realistic and specific ideas of teachers and students, and the information acquired should be quantified and integrated to produce a more accurate prioritized ordering.

Overall, the selection of curriculum assessment methods from the perspective of teacher–student game has both practical and theoretical significance. It can resolve conflicts between teachers and students and expand the scope of conflict analysis applications. Practically speaking, the suggestions for improvement and strategies for optimization proposed through the analysis of the curriculum assessment influencing factors and conflict model guide the selection of assessment methods that tailor to the individualized behaviors of both teachers and students, thereby improving the precision of curriculum assessment and the achievement of assessment objectives. The school’s supervisory and binding power is strengthened through heightened student awareness of learning and teacher sense of responsibility. This has a positive impact on promoting teaching and learning reform and strengthening academic discipline construction. Collaborative efforts between teachers and students generate a great impetus for the sustainable development of education in colleges and universities. Theoretically speaking, we creatively applied the method of conflict analysis, commonly used in solving problems in military, economic, and other fields, to the process of choosing an assessment method for a course. Considering the teacher–student relationship in the game, it breaks through the analytical assumptions of the classical conflict model, broadens the scope of conflict model application, and improves the method’s generalizability. Finally, a standardized curriculum assessment system should be established as a future research direction. Optimizing curriculum assessment is beneficial to the sustainable development of education. These suggestions and strategies should be extended to various cultural, social, and economic environments. The measurement of the “extension degree” can be explored in the future, offering a unique research perspective.