“四新”建设背景下以培养专业人才为目标的产业学院建设模式探索

Exploration of an Industrial College Construction Model for Professional Talent Development under the “Four New” Initiative

摘要: 在校企深度融合背景下，如何将企业资源真正转化为教育教学资源，实现产业学院建设由资源共建向协同育人转变，是“四新”建设背景下应用型高校深化专业人才培养改革面临的重要课题。针对当前校企合作中资源投入与教学应用脱节、专业教育与创新创业教育融合不足等问题，本文采用探索性案例研究思路，结合数智协同产业学院的阶段性建设实践，构建“一核两融三链六维”育人框架，即以学生实践创新能力和职业胜任力培养为核心，推动专业教育与创新创业教育、教育教学与产业实践深度融合，促进教育链、创新链和产业链协同发展，并从管理机制、课程体系、项目实施、实践平台、师资队伍和评价体系六个方面推进建设。在此基础上，进一步构建“需求输入–教学转化–协同实施–评价反馈–持续改进”的运行闭环。阶段性实践显示，该模式已形成涵盖师资培训、项目指导、竞赛组织和平台共建的实施基础，并推动企业资源以多种形式进入人才培养过程。但现有材料主要反映建设投入与实施产出，尚不足以证明学生能力的整体提升，长期育人成效仍需通过能力评价、作品质量、企业反馈和毕业发展等数据持续检验。本文可为应用型高校产业学院建设和人才培养模式改革提供实践参考。

Abstract: Against the backdrop of deep university-industry integration, application-oriented universities face a key challenge: converting enterprise resources into effective teaching resources. This transformation is essential for shifting industry colleges from joint resource development to collaborative education under China’s “Four New” disciplines initiative. This study addresses the disconnect between resource inputs and their instructional use, as well as the insufficient integration of discipline-specific and innovation and entrepreneurship education. Using an exploratory case study, we examined the phased development of a Digital Intelligence Collaborative Industry College and developed a “one core, two integrations, three chains, and six dimensions” framework. The framework centers on cultivating students’ capacity for practice-based innovation and occupational competence. It integrates discipline-specific education with innovation and entrepreneurship education, while also connecting teaching with industrial practice. It further promotes coordinated development across the education, innovation, and industry chains. Implementation spans six dimensions: governance mechanisms, curricula, project delivery, practical training platforms, faculty teams, and evaluation systems. On this basis, we established a closed-loop operating mechanism comprising needs input, instructional transformation, collaborative implementation, evaluation and feedback, and continuous improvement. Interim evidence indicates that the model has established an implementation foundation encompassing faculty training, project mentoring, competition organization, and joint platform development. It has also enabled enterprise resources to enter the talent development process in multiple forms. However, the available evidence primarily documents development inputs and implementation outputs and remains insufficient to demonstrate overall improvements in student capabilities. Long-term educational outcomes therefore require continued assessment using data on competencies, student work quality, enterprise feedback, and graduates’ career development. This study offers a practical reference for developing industry colleges and reforming talent development models in application-oriented universities.