See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263967125

Outcome-based Education – The Assessment of Programme Educational

Objectives for an Engineering Undergraduate Degree

Article · April 2014

DOI: 10.11120/ened.2014.00020

CITATIONS READS

18 903

4 authors:

Kim Yeow Tshai Jee-Hou Ho

University of Nottingham Malaysia University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus
96 PUBLICATIONS   308 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   234 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Eng Hwa Yap Hoon Kiat Ng

University of Technology Sydney University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus
41 PUBLICATIONS   121 CITATIONS    120 PUBLICATIONS   2,645 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The development of valuable products from oil palm wastes View project

Water, energy and food security nexus in Malaysia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kim Yeow Tshai on 29 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CASE STUDY

Outcome-based Education – The Assessment

of Programme Educational Objectives for an
Engineering Undergraduate Degree
K.Y. Tshai, J.-H. Ho, E.H. Yap & H.K. Ng
Department of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Nottingham Malaysia
Campus, Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia

Corresponding author:
K.Y. Tshai, Department of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Nottingham
Malaysia Campus, Jalan Broga, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia
Email: Kim-Yeow.Tshai@nottingham.edu.my, Phone: +60 (3) 8924 8614

Abstract
Outcome-based Education (OBE) emphasises on two main components in terms of student
achievement in an academic programme. One is the Programme Outcomes (POs) which is
measured at the point of graduation, and the other, the Programme Educational Objectives
(PEOs) is assessed over a longer period of time (around 4–5 years) after graduation. This
study focuses on the establishment of a systematic procedure adopted by the Department
of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Engineering at the University of Nottingham
Malaysia Campus (UNMC) to formulate PEOs assessment criteria with integration of
stakeholders' input, methodology for an unbiased measurement of graduates' long-term
attainment rate, as well as analysis and identification of a set of strategies for continuous
quality improvement (CQI). These PEOs are mapped using the guidelines set by the
Engineering Council to those required by the Engineering Accreditation Council (EAC),
Malaysia. The outcome of the mapping exercise was used to formulate an anonymous
online questionnaire survey as a measure of the PEOs' attainment. Key outcomes from this
study revealed that graduates are broadly satisfied with their achievement in all eight PEOs.
Strategies were also proposed to improve the attainment level in four PEOs with relatively
lower attainment rate, as part of the CQI process adopted in the department.

Keywords: accreditation, continuous quality improvement, outcome-based education,

programme educational objectives

Introduction
Outcome-based Education (OBE) has become a central feature in the accreditation of
engineering degrees offered by institutions of higher learning worldwide. For example, the
assessment and evaluation of students' learning outcomes are the general criteria set by
the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) (ABET 2012) in the United
States, as well as the Australian Graduate Attributes set by the Engineers Australia (2005).
In the case of institutions of higher learning in Malaysia, the accreditation guidelines are set

© 2014 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 9, Issue 1 (July 2014)

The Higher Education Academy 74 doi:10.11120/ened.2014.00020
 Tshai et al.

by the Engineering Accreditation Council (EAC) within the Board of Engineers Malaysia
(BEM), which is also moving towards the adoption of OBE, as pointed out by the study
of Aziz et al. (2005).The main reason for this high level of worldwide adoption is due to the
fact that OBE advocates a paradigm shift from traditional practises of course credit
accumulation to a focus on the students' achievement in high order learning and the
mastery of cognitive thinking skills. This is believed to be a better measurement of the
students' success in achieving the key necessary skills. Within an institution, OBE
implementation requires the restructuring of the educational programme, courses,
curriculum, assessment and reporting systems (Malan 2000).
In the 1950s, the work of Bloom (1956) and his colleagues in developing taxonomies for
educational objectives became important. The taxonomies eventually became benchmarks
which were then used in the formulation of specific objectives and the development of
targeted criteria to establish the learners' attainment of acceptable standards against the
desired learning outcomes. Bloom's work, particularly in addressing the cognitive domain,
remains instrumental in the assessment of OBE. In his work, Killen (2000) stressed the
importance of linking assessments to long-term and significant outcomes expected of the
learners, or to the short-term enabling outcomes which were derived from these long-term
outcomes. This is in accordance to the principles of ‘clarity of focus’ and ‘designing back’.
There are two major types of outcomes in OBE, as defined by Killen (2000). The first
emphasises on measurement of coursework, examination results, rates of course
completion and employment upon graduation, while the second performance indicator
is less tangible, commonly required the leaners to express what they have learned and
capable to perform as a result of completing their education. It places greater focus on
long-term outcomes leading to the future career success of the learner. OBE consists of
four main principles (Brandt 1992): clarity of focus, expanded opportunity, high
expectations and design down.
Clarity of focus requires gearing the development of curriculum towards the outcomes
expected of the students. These should not be short-term targets (weekly, semester or
yearly) but end results that students would achieve upon graduation and beyond. This
also emphasises on the need to pursue continuous development throughout the career.
The second principle, expanded opportunity, aims to provide learners with various ways to
achieve the learning outcomes. Approaches such as lectures, tutorials, assessments,
seminars and workshops, industrial visits and dialogues, industrial attachment,
departmental briefing, student sharing sessions and competitions are adopted within the
OBE framework.
The high expectations principle requires every learner to consistently achieve high level
of performance. Students must develop a structural mind set and a sharp mind to tackle
problems. They have to utilise the engineering principles and common sense efficiently to
track sequential thoughts. Other attributes such as fast learning by organising information
rather than just receiving information, holistic approach in handling engineering problems
with appropriate safety, sustainable and engineering awareness are highly desirable.
The final principle, design down, requires all curriculum design and teaching activities
to comply with the outcomes from top to bottom levels. Spady (1994) illustrates the
development of outcomes following the hierarchy of Exit Outcomes, Programme
Outcomes, Course Outcomes, Unit Outcomes and Lesson Outcomes. The assessment of
the overall achievement includes a linkage to long-term educational outcome of the learner,
e.g. the long-term Programme Educational Objective (PEO) must be measured for a period
of at least five years from graduation, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Another key element in OBE focuses on the quality assurance of the education system.
Quality measurement is important in engineering education (Owlia & Aspinwall 1996, 1998)

© 2014 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 9, Issue 1 (July 2014)

The Higher Education Academy 75 doi:10.11120/ened.2014.00020
to ensure that the objectives of any engineering course are achieved and to identify key
areas for improvement. There is a need to establish a continuous quality improvement
(CQI) framework for engineering education to address the problem of skillset mismatch
between the industries and institutions, as reported in recent surveys (Waks & Frank 2002,
Magee 2004, May & Strong 2006).

Figure 1 The proposed linkage of Spady’s (1994) top to bottom levels of outcomes development
with the incorporation of long-term PEOs.

CQI is a process where an education programme is continuously, intentionally and

systematically improved in a cycle or process where an increasing positive outcome is
envisaged. CQI is relevant in an engineering degree programme at university because most
accreditation engineering bodies have instituted CQI in the OBE. Several universities have
adopted CQI in the ongoing assessment of their degree programme and have developed
methodology to measure outcomes and to improve the teaching and learning process
(Rozeha et al. 2007). Many have recorded marked improvements in the teaching and learning
process over the period of implementation, such as those reported by Anuar et al. (2009) in
their study at University Tenaga National, Malaysia and Shekar et al. (2008) at Purdue
University Calumet, Hammond, IN. Input from stakeholders is an important component in
the CQI process. During the three to four years of an engineering degree programme, various
stakeholders and factors play significant roles in providing the most appropriate learning
environment, innovative teaching style, assessment and feedback upon which a student's
competency on his/her pathway to a professional engineering career is cultivated. Todd and
Magleby (2005) reported a case study of developing a design capstone course with inputs
from various stakeholders including students, faculty and administrators.
The Department of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Engineering at the
University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus (UNMC) adopts a similar hierarchy which
links the outcomes from the top to the bottom levels in the vision and mission of the
university, PEOs, Programme Objectives (POs) and module Learning Outcomes (LOs).
The attainment level of the exit outcomes are measured through an anonymous online
questionnaire survey and the detailed analyses have been reported by Ho et al. (2013).
Determining students' satisfaction level in their attainment of PEO in the survey is an
essential part in closing the loop of the CQI process within the context of OBE. As an
example, Sani et al. (2008) pointed out that using surveys in this enquiry is an essential
tool for the CQI in their degree programme.
This paper hence focuses on measuring the attainment level of the long-term PEOs for
MEng graduates from the Department of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing

© 2014 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 9, Issue 1 (July 2014)

The Higher Education Academy 76 doi:10.11120/ened.2014.00020
 Tshai et al.

Engineering at the UNMC (as indicated at the top level in the hierarchy shown in Figure 1).
The next section provides an overview of the OBE and the hierarchy of the measurable
outcomes, as well as the incorporation of CQI in the PEO formulation framework. The third
section illustrates the methodology used in the assessment of students' attainment of
PEOs. Results are discussed in the fourth section. The fifth section concludes this study and
makes appropriate recommendations for future works.

PEOs formulation framework

At the UNMC, the stakeholders' involvement is an essential part of the review process.
The opinions and requirements of both internal and external audits on quality assurance,
i.e. both the university and external quality assurance bodies as stakeholders are regarded
as crucial elements in the quality of the higher education provided. The PEOs are
formulated in accordance to the procedure depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Procedure in the formulation of PEOs.

© 2014 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 9, Issue 1 (July 2014)

The Higher Education Academy 77 doi:10.11120/ened.2014.00020
The PEOs should contain broad statements describing the career and professional
accomplishments that the programme is preparing the graduates to achieve. Therefore it
concerns various parties and the first step is to identify the stakeholders, as outlined as:
 the university,
 professional societies and regulatory bodies,
 members of staff,
 current student,
 external examiners,
 alumni (use for validation),
 industrial advisory board,
 employers (use for validation).
The procedure outlined in Figure 2 enables the formulation of a set of eight PEOs capable
of matching the major requirements of stakeholders, which was subsequently linked to the
UK-SPEC (Standard for Professional Engineering Competence) Learning Outcomes
(Engineering Council, UK 2010), as shown in Table 1. This set of learning outcomes is
based upon the MEng learning outcomes set by the Engineering Council which comply
with the UK-SPEC statements adapted by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE)
for Mechanical Engineering degrees. Here, they are categorised into various symbolic
coding as in Table 1. Learning outcomes with ‘m’ suffix are masters level enhancements to
the specific learning outcomes covered in BEng programmes for satisfying the Chartered
Engineer (CEng) academic requirements. Learning outcomes with ‘M’ coding are
additionally set by the department to addresses transferable/key skills which is shown in
Table 2.
In compliance with the university's Quality Manual, the Mechanical Engineering
programme undergoes two formal review processes. Figure 3 shows the flow chart of the
review processes leading to the achievement of the CQI objectives. The ‘schools review’ is
a major review and happens on a five year cycle and the ‘annual programme review’
happens every year. These reviews encompass a wide range of feedback as well as several
sub-processes starting from the frontline feedbacks from students via the Learning
Community Forum (LCF), Students' Evaluation of Teaching (SET), Students' Evaluation of
Module (SEM), students' performance in coursework and exam as well as evaluation of
students' attainment of POs. These frontline feedbacks would be reviewed at UNMC and
then jointly with counterparts from the UK campus. This can be used to formulate a new
set of module outlines for the next teaching cycle if needed. The module reviews then
formed a set of intermediate feedbacks for subject theme review conducted both locally at
UNMC as well as jointly with the UK campus. The school review before the university's
teaching and learning board is conducted using outcomes from UNMC and University of
Nottingham UK programme review alongside stakeholders' feedback.

Assessment methodology
The main methodology used in measuring the attainment level of PEOs is through an
online anonymous questionnaire survey. Fifty-one MEng graduates from the Department of
Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Engineering at UNMC are selected as the target
population for this study, with a total of 24 respondents. The attainment level of the PEOs is
then analysed through the survey results. A dedicated set of survey questions must be
customised for individual courses. The set of questions were strengthened with a focus
group discussion consisting of members of staff in the department to formulate the survey.

© 2014 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 9, Issue 1 (July 2014)

The Higher Education Academy 78 doi:10.11120/ened.2014.00020
 Tshai et al.

The outcomes of the focus group discussion were translated into an anonymous online
questionnaire survey as a tool to measure the attainment of PEOs against a five discrete
level gauge (from very satisfied to very dissatisfied).

Table 1 The PEOs of UNMC's Mechanical Engineering undergraduate degrees mapped

to the UK-SPEC Learning Outcomes.

UK-SPEC statements
PEOs PEOs statement
adapted by the IMechE
PEO1 An understanding of the principles and techniques US1, US2, US3, US1m, US2m, M5, M6
of mechanical engineering science and of the
computational and mathematical tools used
in the solution of real problems
PEO2 The ability to apply these principles and methods US3m, US4m, E1, E2, E3, E4,
in the practice of mechanical engineering E1m, P3, P4, US2
PEO3 The ability to visualise, design and analyse D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, M5, D4m
components and assemblies in
three dimensions
PEO4 A sound knowledge of material properties D1m, D4m, P1, P2, P7, P1m, P2m
and manufacturing methods and their cost
effective use in the design and improvement
of engineering components and equipment
PEO5 The ability to communicate ideas effectively in M1, M2, M3
written reports, verbally and by means
of presentations to groups
PEO6 The ability to work as a member of a team and M4, M7, US3m
to display initiative and enterprise in the
planning and realisation of engineering projects
PEO7 Confidence through practice in the use E2m, E3m
of experimental methods
PEO8 The appreciation of the responsibilities of S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S1m, S2m,
Professional Mechanical Engineers and of P5, P6, P8, P8m, M7, US4m,
the social, management and financial D3, D6, P1m, P7
environment in which they work

Table 2 Learning Outcomes set by the department to address transferable skills.

Transferable/key skills (M)

M1 Ability to prepare technical reports
M2 Ability to give technical presentations
M3 Ability to communicate effectively
M4 Leadership skills and ability to as a team
M5 Ability to use general IT tools
M6 Develop a scientific approach in solving problems
M7 Ability to learn independently and to adapt a critical approach in investigation

The online questionnaire survey contains 34 questions from six groups consisting of
details, professional development, salary scale, job prospects, continuous professional
training and the PEOs, as shown in Table 3.

© 2014 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 9, Issue 1 (July 2014)

The Higher Education Academy 79 doi:10.11120/ened.2014.00020
 Figure 3 Key review processes to facilitate CQI.

All alumni graduated in the last five years were invited to respond to the survey.
The questionnaire survey is designed to monitor the student's progress in their career
since graduation. The survey is relatively short, simple and straightforward to encourage
a higher level of participation. The purpose of the survey is also self-explanatory and
made available to the alumni at the onset of the session, emphasising on the anonymity of
the survey. Alumni who agreed to participate are given a web link to access the survey and
the questionnaire is made available in a predefined period of time. They are given the
option to withdraw at any time for the case where they do not feel comfortable to submit
their survey.
Upon obtaining the results, statistical analyses are conducted on the measured data.
Quantitative data are analysed and depicted in graphs and charts to determine the

© 2014 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 9, Issue 1 (July 2014)

The Higher Education Academy 80 doi:10.11120/ened.2014.00020
 Tshai et al.

percentage of a particular finding, with percentage of various elements of the PEOs being
rated as ‘high (above 70%)’, ‘medium (50–69%)’ and ‘low (49% and below)’ as a guideline to
identify the most crucial elements of the PEOs for continuous quality improvement in the
education system of the engineering programme.

Table 3 The six major groups in online questionnaire survey.

Group Categories
1. Details Student's degree
Student's programme
Year of graduation/study
2. Professional development Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM)
Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM)
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK (IMechE)
Other relevant professional institutions
Class of membership
3. Salary scale Monthly salary scale
4. Job prospect Area/industry
Job title
Number of staff under your leadership
5. Continuous professional training Job training, self-initiated professional training
Attendance of short course, seminar, workshop or
conference
6. Programme Educational Objectives PEO1 to PEO8
(PEOs)

Results and discussions

Figure 4 shows the various industrial clusters in which the graduates who participated
in the survey are employed. Three largest clusters are manufacturing, consultancy and oil
and gas industry, which accounts for 50% of the total respondents.
Figure 5 shows the outcomes of the questionnaire survey on the attainment of PEOs
amongst alumni. From Figure 5, it can be observed that four PEOs (namely PEO1, PEO2,
PEO5 and PEO6) achieved favourable level of attainment (>70%), whilst the remaining
PEOs have achieved attainment levels lower than 70%. The PEOs under 70% (PEO3, PEO4,
PEO7 and PEO8) would be addressed in the CQI process.

Figure 4 Industrial clusters of the respondents employed in their career.

© 2014 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 9, Issue 1 (July 2014)

The Higher Education Academy 81 doi:10.11120/ened.2014.00020
 Figure 5 Results from questionnaire survey showing PEOs attainment amongst alumni.

PEO1, PEO2, PEO5 and PEO6 achieved attainment rate above 70%. These PEOs are related
to core principles of mechanical engineering and its application in practical problems, the
ability to communicate ideas effectively using written formats and verbal presentation,
working together as a team member displaying initiative and enterprise in engineering
projects. These PEOs are the basis of the core structure of the mechanical engineering
programme hence its coverage throughout the programme is eminent especially in the
compulsory elements of the programme e.g. Professional Studies, Solid Mechanics,
Materials and Manufacturing, Structural Vibration, Thermofluids, etc. Therefore, students
had vast opportunities to work in a team in several modules featuring group work e.g.
Design and Manufacture, Group Design Project and Group Design and Make. A 12 week
industrial internship is compulsory for students, giving them the required exposure in
applying their knowledge in a practical environment. Students are also strongly encouraged
to participate in team competitions such as Bosch Power Drill Race, Formula Varsity, the
James Dyson Award, etc. to cultivate the culture of team working and to build up the
experiences in applying these principles in their career upon graduation. This has
contributed to the graduates' confidence in the attainment of these PEOs.
PEO3 has the lowest attainment rate of 54%. This is concerned with the graduates' ability to
visualise, design and analyse components and assemblies in three dimensions. The
achievement of this PEO is mainly relied on the delivery, contents and assessment of
modules with design elements. The low attainment indicates that more emphasis should be
placed in guiding the students in constructing three-dimensional (3D) engineering models
in orthographic and auxiliary projections, isometric views, sectioning, dimensioning and
assembly drawings, as well as their perceptions in conceptual, embodiment and detailed
design. Strategies to improve the attainment of PEO3 formed part of a portfolio of
CQI processes to be implemented in the programme. These include introduction of a
comprehensive self-help guide on Moodle (the university's Virtual Learning Environment),
employing more research assistants with knowledge of 3D modelling, engaging industrial
lecturers to contribute to the teaching of design, continuously updating and improving the
video demonstrations used, improving the efficiency of the assessment of these elements
in the programme.
PEO4 is mostly linked to the graduates' understanding on materials properties and
manufacturing, as well as cost effective in design and system improvement. This is related
to the ‘design’ and ‘practice’ in the UK-SPEC Learning Outcomes. Only 63% of the
graduates felt that they have acquired this educational objective and applied it in their
career. A relatively low attainment rate indicates that the graduates need more practicing

© 2014 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 9, Issue 1 (July 2014)

The Higher Education Academy 82 doi:10.11120/ened.2014.00020
 Tshai et al.

elements in costing as well as creative and innovative approach to improve an engineering

system and perhaps this has to be implemented in the curriculum design. Another possible
reason is that the graduates may not have the opportunity to apply the skill in their career
due to various reasons such as the job scope and the nature of the business in which the
employer is involved in. Suggested improvements for better attainment in this PEO include
embedding more practical elements in the design, materials and manufacturing modules.
For example, students can be asked to submit a business plan which includes costing,
business plan as well as the marketing strategy in their design project. Optimisation in
terms of material design, which seeks a balance between low cost materials and system
performance, would also need to be emphasised.
The lower attainment level of PEO7 highlighted that the graduates do not have sufficient
confidence to practice and effectively utilise systematic experimental methodologies in
engineering problem-solving processes. Lack of confidence in experimental methods could
be correlated to the students' concern on the health and safety risk associated with a
particular experimental procedure, and their ability to extract data pertinent to an unfamiliar
problem, apply mathematical/computer-based models to formulate feasible solutions,
assess the limitations of particular cases, setup and conduct appropriate experimental
methods to evaluate the solution. The challenge to improve the attainment level in PEO7
dictates a necessity to empowering students with a skillset of experimental techniques, as
well as an awareness of the associated risk. This unavoidably requires a restructuring of
modules delivery with laboratory experimentation and machining workshop. Apart from a
set of general health and safety rules and regulations, the associated risks must be
customised and adapted to suit a dedicated laboratory/workshop. In addition to the
underpinning engineering knowledge, experimental methods typically require a hands-on
approach, whereby a combination of what the students see, hear, and touch provide
value-added activities to boost the confidence level. In this respect, small group teaching
should be further enhanced in laboratory activities to provide each student an opportunity
to conduct hands-on experiments. Often, the assessment on student comprehension in
experimental procedure has not been rigorously tested as the focus is largely on the
measured data and their subsequent engineering calculations. This element should be
improved by considering the various level of Bloom's taxonomy in setting the laboratory
evaluation sheet and having the instructors to pay closer attention to ensuring that proper
best practises are followed.
PEO8 is on the expectation of the graduates to appreciate the responsibilities of
Professional Mechanical Engineers and of the social, management and financial
environment in which they work. The results show that only a small proportion of the
graduates believe that their degree has provided sufficient coverage and exposure to
the requirements, expectations and standards regarding the responsibilities of a
professional engineer, as well as little emphasis on elements in management and business
and financial knowledge so that an engineer could carry out his/her work efficiently. For
better attainment in PEO8, embedding elements of professional practices of an engineer
into parts of the classical modules is proposed. Although there is a module on Professional
Studies, this is insufficient as the module only carries 10 credits (8.3% of Year One
modules). When taught in isolation, it has become difficult for the students to relate
professional practices to engineering knowledge therefore embedding these elements into
core modules is preferable.

Conclusions
Using a pre-determined set of PEOs complying with the UK-SPECS outcomes, this paper
reports a survey to measure the graduates' attainment level of PEOs from their degree

© 2014 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 9, Issue 1 (July 2014)

The Higher Education Academy 83 doi:10.11120/ened.2014.00020
course within five years of graduation from the UNMC Mechanical Engineering
programme. The survey results have shown that graduates have perceived their
attainment of most PEOs to be above the satisfactory level. The results also showed that
there are four areas (PEO3, PEO4, PEO7 and PEO8) with relatively lower attainment as
rated amongst the graduates. Using these results, insights into how the graduates
perceived their own attainment and key causes of unsuccessful attainment were
highlighted. Appropriate recommendations were proposed using the UK-SPECS and
BEM guidelines. This process is part of the departmental CQI process strategy and changes
are to be implemented in the next academic year to improve the level of attainment of
these PEOs.
The conclusions of the study as discussed is limited to the results from the graduate
questionnaires on the attainment of the programme of study and do not consider other
factors beyond graduation which may affect the results of the survey. There are several
issues to be addressed in further works from this study which include assessing the
graduates' individual exposures/experiences and further professional development
schemes beyond graduation. Inclusion of feedbacks from employers should also be
considered to make the study more comprehensive.

References
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) (2012) Criteria for accrediting
engineering programs 2013–2014. Baltimore, MD: ABET.
Anuar, A., Shuaib, N., Sahari, K. and Abidin, I. (2009) Continual improvement and
assessment plan for mechanical engineering programme at UNITEN, pp19–24.
Kuala Lumpur: IEEE.
Aziz, A., Megat Mohd Noor, M., Abang Ali, A. and Jaafar, M. (2005) A Malaysian
outcome-based engineering education model. International Journal of Engineering
and Technology 2 (1), 14–21.
Bloom, B.S. (1956) Taxanomy of educational objective: handbook 1. Cognitive domain.
New York: McKay.
Brandt, R. (1992) On outcome-based education: a conversation with Bill Spady. Educational
Leadership 50 (4), 66–70.
Engineering Council, UK (2010) The accreditation of higher education programmes: UK
standard for professional engineering competence. London: Engineering Council, UK.
Engineers Australia 2005. Accreditation management system educational programs at the
level of professional engineer. Barton, ACT: Engineers Australia.
Ho, J.-H., Tshai, K.Y. and Yap, E.H. (2013) Students' Attainment of Programme Objectives
(POs) for the Mechanical Engineering Undergraduate Degrees at the University of
Nottingham Malaysia Campus (UNMC), International Symposium on Education, Psychology
and Social Sciences (ISEPSS 2013). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Killen, R. (2000) Standards-referenced assessment: linking outcomes, assessment and
reporting. Keynote address at the Annual Conference of the Association for the Study of
Evaluation in Education in Southern Africa, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, 26–29 September.
Magee, C.L. (2004) Needs and possibilities for engineering education: one industrial/
academic perspective. International Journal of Engineering Education 20 (3), 341–352.
Malan, S.P. (2000) The "New Paradigm" of outcome based education in perspective. Journal
of Family, Ecology and Consumer Sciences 28, 22–28.

© 2014 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 9, Issue 1 (July 2014)

The Higher Education Academy 84 doi:10.11120/ened.2014.00020
 Tshai et al.

May, E. and Strong, D. (2006) Is engineering education delivering what industry requires.
The Third CDEN Design Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Owlia, M. and Aspinwall, E. (1996) A framework for the dimension of quality in higher
education. Quality Assurance in Education 4 (2), 12–20.
Owlia, M. and Aspinwall, E. (1998) A framework for measuring quality in engineering
education. Total Quality Management 9 (6), 501–518.
Rozeha, A.R., Mazlina, E., Sadruddin, M. and Abdullah, R. (2007) Continuous improvement
in engineering education through effective value for money audits. In Proceeding, Second
International Conference on Engineering Education & Training (ICEET-2), MOVENPICK Hotel
Kuwait, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Sani, M. et al. (2008) Assesment of the mechanical engineering programs by exit surveys
at University Malaysia Pahang, pp317–323. Shah Alam, s.n.
Shekar, C.R., Farook, O. and Bouktache, E. (2008) Continuous improvement process based
on outcome based education. Nashville, TN: IAJC-IJME.
Spady, W. (1994) Choosing outcomes of significance. Educational Leadership 51 (6), 18–22.
Todd, R.H. and Magleby, S.P. (2005) Elements of a successful capstone course considering
the needs of stakeholders. European Journal of Engineering Education 30 (2), 203–214.
Waks, S. and Frank, M. (2002) Engineering curriculum versus industry needs: a case study.
IEEE Transactions on Education 43 (3), 349–352.

© 2014 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 9, Issue 1 (July 2014)

The Higher Education Academy 85 doi:10.11120/ened.2014.00020

View publication stats