## 4 Evaluation System
### Test and Effect Evaluation
#### 4.4.3 Test Results Before and After the Course
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{85.4 pt} p{85.4 pt} p{85.4 pt} p{85.4 pt}} \hline Test Category & Specific Test Content & Test Format & Scoring Subject and Method \\ \hline Overall team performance evaluation & Quality assessment of team project results & Comprehensive evaluation of team projects (publicity activities, protection program implementation, etc.) & Teachers conduct field visits, community feedback surveys, and project report scoring, and ERNIE Bot assists in data analysis \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Team member growth and development analysis} & Compare the performance of team members before and after the course, and analyze the role of collaboration in individual growth & Teachers conduct comprehensive evaluation based on observation and students’ self-evaluation and peer evaluation, and ERNIE Bot assists in data analysis \\ \cline{1-1}  & \multicolumn{1}{p{85.4 pt}}{} & \multicolumn{1}{p{85.4 pt}}{} & \multicolumn{1}{p{85.4 pt}}{} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: _Cont._the scientificity and predictive rationality of the model in the middle of the course were significantly improved, and the average score increased to about 70 points. At the end of the course, students were able to build a more complex and scientific ecological model, and the prediction results were highly reliable, with an average score of more than 85 points. 3. Teamwork ability. In the task division and collaboration observation, at the beginning of the course, some teams had problems such as unreasonable task allocation and poor communication among members, and the team collaboration efficiency was low, with an average score of about 60 points. After the guidance of teachers and the running-in of multiple team activities, the team collaboration situation in the middle of the course was significantly improved, the task division was more reasonable, the communication was smoother, and the average score increased to about 80 points. At the end of the course, the team members cooperated well and were able to complete the tasks efficiently, with an average score of more than 90 points. In the evaluation of teamwork projects, at the beginning of the course, the group projects had problems such as unclear goals and insufficient innovation in results, with an average score of about 65 points. With the improvement of teamwork ability and the cultivation of innovative thinking, the quality of the mid-course projects improved significantly, with clear goals and certain innovation in results, and the average score increased to about 85 points. At the end of the course, the group projects performed well in terms of goal achievement, innovative design, and results presentation, with an average score of more than 95 points. 4. Depth of thinking. In the data analysis and reflection report, at the beginning of the course, the logic of the student report content was poor, the reflection was not in-depth, and the improvement measures were not targeted, with an average score of about 55 points. As the course progressed, students gradually learned to analyze data in depth, their logical thinking ability was enhanced, their reflection was more profound, and their improvement measures were operational. The average score in the middle of the course increased to about 75 points. At the end of the course, students were able to write high-quality data analysis and reflection reports, with a high level of thinking depth and logic, and an average score of more than 90 points. In the problem solving and innovative thinking challenges, at the beginning of the course, the solutions proposed by students were relatively conventional, lacked innovation, and their thinking was not flexible enough, with an average score of about 50 points. After many challenges and much learning, students began to propose some novel solutions in the middle of the course, their thinking flexibility improved, and the average score increased to about 70 points.