Effective Vetting and Moderation Process for

Creating High-Quality Assessment Item

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ir Che Maznah Mat Isa
School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam
Associate Director (Civil)
Engineering Accreditation Department
Board of Engineers Malaysia
chema982@uitm.edu.my
HP: 0196204707

Date: 20 April 2021

Time: 9.00 am – 12.00 pm
Venue: Webex Platform
 No. Qualification/
Brief Bio Certification
1. Registered Graduate Engineer
2. Registered Professional
Engineer with Practicing
Certificate (PEPC)
3. Registered Member (MIEM)
4. Certified Head of Panel
Evaluator
5. Certified Head of Panel
Evaluator
ASSOC. PROF. DR. IR. CHE MAZNAH MAT ISA 6. CDIO Certified Master Trainer
7. MQA APEL A & C: Panel
• ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION & POSITION Evaluator
• PhD in Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
8. Registered IEEE Member
MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor
• MSc. in Integrated Construction Project 9. Internal Auditor/Accreditation
Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Panel Evaluator
Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
• BSc. In Civil Engineering, University of North 10. External Examiner
Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina, United
States of America. 11. Liaison Officer
• Pre-Engineering, Columbia Greene-
Community College, Hudson, New York, 12. International Accreditation
United States of America.
Review Trainee
• Associate Professor -17 Jan 2019 – present
• Head of Quality Unit 1 Dec. 2017 – 30 Nov.
13. International Accreditation:
2019 Observer
• Associate Director (Technician): Engineering 14. International Accreditation
Technology Accreditation Council (ETAC): 1 Review Team: Observer
July 2018 – 30 June 2020
• Associate Director (Civil): Engineering 15. Expert Outcome-Based
Accreditation Council (EAC): 1 June 2020 – Education for ASEAN
31 May 2024 16. Editorial Board Member
Body/Authority/Organization Year Awarded
Board of Engineers Malaysia 1998-current
Board of Engineers Malaysia 2005-current
Institute of Engineers Malaysia 2
2005 - current
Engineering Accreditation Council (EAC), 2010 - current
Engineering Technology Accreditation Council (ETAC), 2017 - current
Teaching & Learning Engineering Framework 2012 - current
Institute of Continuing Education and Professional 2020 - current
Services (ICEPs), UiTM
IEEE since 2021
Diploma Programme (ETAC) & Degree Programme 2017 & 2020 -
(EAC) since 2017 and Post-Graduate Programmes current
(Master & PhD) (MQA) Faculty of Civil Engineering
Civil Engineering Programmes in Various Public and 2018-current
Private Universities and Polytechnics in Malaysia
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Universiti 2018 – 2022
Teknologi MARA and Veltech University, Chennai India
International Engineering Alliances for Washington, May 2021
Sydney, and Dublin Accords
Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board 3-5 June 2022
IABEE (Indonesia Accreditation Board for Engineering October 2021 –
Education) Review Team, under International March 2022
Engineering Alliances for Washington Accord.
European Union Support to Higher Education in 22 March 2022
the ASEAN Region (SHARE).
Journal of Management Scholarship 2022
 At the end of this presentation, the participants should be
able to:
1. Review OBE understanding constructive alignment on
Teaching, Learning and Assessment (TLA)
implementation
2. Understand the concept of vetting process and
moderation of item assessment;
3. Understand the requirements of the vetting process
and moderation of item assessment to ensure
Learning consistent quality of academic programs to fulfill the
requirements by the accreditation bodies (KPT/MQA,
Outcomes EAC, ETAC and MBOT);
4. Understand the roles and responsibilities and
characteristics of a good vetting and rating item
moderator;
5. Understand the processes, methods/procedures and
instruments related to implementation of the
assessment process (vetting) and moderation of items
for effective assessment; and
6. Appreciate the CQI process and sharing best practices
3

and experiences.
4
6
 For Engineering Programmes - Incorporating
WK, WP & EA (Complex Engineering Problems & Activities – Washington Accord)
SK, SP & TA (Broadly-Defined Engineering Problems & Activities – Sydney Accord)
DK, DP & TA (Well-defined Engineering Problems – Dublin Accord)
8
9
10
11
FORMATIVE AND SUMMATIVE

Formative Assessments - used to provide

feedback to guide learning, helps students
to form. FOR learning because educators
use the results to modify and improve
teaching techniques during an instructional
period
Summative Assessments - used to
contribute marks toward final grades or for
the determination of final grades. OF
learning because educators evaluate
academic achievement at the end of an 12
instructional period.
 ASSESSMENT VS EVALUATION 13

• Assessment - a complex process

requiring multiple methods of data
collection and careful analysis, to
inform both the instructor and the
student as to how the course is
progressing (formative) or how it
has ended (summative).
• Evaluation - to judge the
effectiveness of instructional
methods, the course contents, and
the achievement of course
outcomes
CQI
 ASSESSMENT VERSUS EVALUATION 14

ASSESSMENT EVALUATION

Relationship: Both require criteria, use measures and are evidence-driven

Assessment is the systematic process of documenting Evaluation focuses on grades and might reflect
and using empirical data to measure knowledge, skills, classroom components other than course content and
attitudes and beliefs. mastery level.
By taking the assessment, teachers/lecturers try to An evaluation can be used as a final review to gauge
improve the student's path towards learning. the quality of instruction.
Improves learning quality Provides closure
Is ongoing Judges learning level
Individualized Applied against standard
Ungraded Graded
Provided feedback Show shortfalls
For learning Of learning
Process-oriented Product Oriented
15
16
17
 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION
ASSESSMENT TOOLS TRUE ATTAINMENT OF
ATTAINMENT OF PROGRAMME OUTCOME
COURSE OUTCOME

ALIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT TOOLS WITH COURSE OUTCOMES TOWARDS TRUE PROGRAMME OUTCOME
 CONCEPT OF VETTING AND MODERATION OF
ASSESSMENT ITEMS

Vetting
➢The act or process of appraising or checking a Direct & Explicit
person or thing for suitability, accuracy, or Assessment
validity
& True Attainment
Moderation
➢The quality assurance process that ensures
appropriate standards.
➢It is a process for ensuring that marks or grades
are awarded appropriately and consistently.
➢Moderation involves checking and reviewing
assessment schemes, items and assessor 19
judgments.
 REQUIREMENTS OF THE VETTING PROCESS AND MODERATION TO
FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS BY THE ACCREDITATION BODIES
EAC STANDARD 2020 (ENGINEERING PROGRAMME) & ETAC
STANDARD 2020 (TECHNICIAN & TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAMMES)
System for Examination Regulations including
Preparation and Moderation of Examination Papers
The IHL shall establish a working system for examination regulations
including preparation and moderation of examination papers.
Section 6.7.4 Quality Assurance (Page 21 – EAC Standard 2020)
• A quality management system must be in place to assure the
achievement of Programme Outcomes. The IHL shall maintain its
quality management system, based on an established quality
assurance standard, for example, ISO 9001 Quality Management
System, or other quality assurance systems and benchmarking. The
quality assurance processes should include, among others:
✓ (a) Student admission including credit and course transfer/exemption.
✓ (b) Teaching and learning.
✓ (c) Assessment and evaluation which include:
➢ examination regulations and criteria for pass/fail
➢ preparation and moderation processes
➢ level of assessment
➢ assessment processes including final year project/industrial training.
• Condition for Passing Courses (EAC Standard 2020 – Engineering
Programme) - The IHLs must ensure that no students shall pass a
course if they fail in their final examination of that course, unless the
continuous assessment approach adopted can demonstrate the
attainment of the depth of knowledge.
TETAC 2019 (MBOT)
Assessment Regulation and Policies
Section 9.2.3 (page 21)
The EPs shall clearly define
✓ the assessments’ regulation and policies such
as the mechanisms to provide feedback to the
students’ achievement and performance,\
✓ the management of the final examination
processes including but not limited to vetting
and moderation, input from External Advisor,
strong room regulations, grading systems,
appeal mechanisms, endorsement of results,
and attainment of learning outcomes, an
academic regulation handbook, records
reporting students’ assessments, and
students’ performance feedback.
The principles of constructive alignment should
be adhered to in defining learning outcomes and
aligning the outcomes with assessments,
teaching strategies and learning activities.
20
COPPIA (MQA)
Assessment Methods: Information on Standards
▪ Section 2.2.1 Describe how a variety of assessment
methods and tools are used in assessing learning outcomes
and competencies. Show the utilization of both summative
and formative assessment methods within the programme.
(The information given for this standard must be
consistent with that of Standard 1.2.4 in Area 1.)
• Section 2.2.2
✓ (a) Explain how the department ensures the validity,
reliability, integrity, currency and fairness of student
assessment over time and across sites (if applicable);
✓ b) Indicate the authority and processes for verification
and moderation of summative assessments.
✓ (c) What guidelines and mechanisms are in place to
address academic plagiarism among students?
✓ (d) Are the assessment methods reviewed periodically?
Describe the review of the assessment methods in the
programme conducted (e.g., the existence of a permanent
review committee on assessment, and consultation with
external examiners, students, alumni and industry).
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS
OF A GOOD VETTING AND RATING ITEM MODERATOR 21

VETTER’S ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES:

The vetters are experienced lecturers who are normally
also the Resource Person (RP) of a course. The followings
describe the main roles of RP:
(a)Update the course syllabus;
(b)Monitor teaching, learning, continuous assessment and
final examination for courses that are taught by more
than one lecturer. However, the RP is not necessarily
the person teaching the course;
(c)Evaluate the depth and breadth of the questions in the
test and final exam or any assessment; and
Bengkel Penyediaan Kertas Soalan:
(d)Moderate the examination questions to ensure EC110 – Diploma Kejuruteraan Awam,
consistency and the questions cover the syllabus of the UiTM Pasir Gudang (Feb 2020)
course.
 EXECUTION OF VETTING OF EXAMINATION QUESTIONS 22

The vetting of examination questions are carefully executed to ensure that:

a) All COs and POs as stated in the syllabus are directly assessed in the
examination.
b) All the examination questions are formulated based on learning outcomes of
lectures, tutorials, and assignments.
c) The percentage level of difficulty is distributed when preparing the examination
questions according to semester.
d) The marking scheme indicates the length of the answer is reasonable and
students are able to produce the answers within the allocated time. The
Question-and-answer scheme must be checked by the RP and appointed vetter.
e) Sentences are simple and easily understood by the students.
 PROCESSES, METHODS/ PROCEDURES AND INSTRUMENTS RELATED TO
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VETTING PROCESS AND MODERATION OF 23
ITEMS FOR EFFECTIVE ASSESSMENT

• SYSTEMATIC MECHANISM: Several mechanisms are employed to ensure the validity,

reliability, consistency and fairness of the student assessment system.
• STAGES IN VETTING PROCESS: During the final examination questions preparation, several
stages of vetting have been included to ensure the examination to be fair and free from
errors. The process starts from the Head of Centre of Studies and Resource Person (RP) as it
is their responsibility to ensure the correctness and suitability of the examination questions
and its answer scheme. The examination questions and answer scheme are also verified by
a vetter/RP before it can be submitted to the Academic Office.
• PKSP WORKSHOP: A “Bengkel Penyediaan Kertas Soalan Peperiksaan” or PKSP Workshop is
conducted every semester in order to prepare and verify the final exam question.
• Condition for Passing Courses (EAC Standard 2020 – Engineering Programme) - The IHLs
must ensure that no students shall pass a course if they fail in their final examination of
that course, unless the continuous assessment approach adopted can demonstrate the
attainment of the depth of knowledge.
 PROCESSES, METHODS/ PROCEDURES AND INSTRUMENTS RELATED TO
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VETTING PROCESS AND MODERATION OF ITEMS 24
FOR EFFECTIVE ASSESSMENT
• SYNDICATED MARKING: In terms of marking, syndicated marking is adopted for courses that
are taught by more than one lecturer. The evidence of syndicated marking must be
revealed during the course file audit.
• SECOND EXAMINER: In addition, ten percent (10%) of the answer script is checked by a
second examiner to ensure fairness and consistency in marking.
• STANDARD PROCEDURES: The process of preparing final examination questions, process of
moderation and managing results are documented as the standard procedures in Quality
Document:
✓Prosedur Penyediaan Kertas Peperiksaan Akhir (SPK. UiTM. FKA. (A) 08) and
✓Prosedur Pengurusan Markah dan Keputusan Peperiksaan Akhir (SPK. UiTM. FKA. (A) 02),
respectively.
• EXTERNAL EXAMINER: Good assessment practices are benchmarked with the examination
papers through the evaluation by the external examiner. The examiner will provide critical
comments on the assessment practices as part of the TOR for the examiner.
 SECOND EXAMINER: To ensure fairness and consistency 25

Second Examiner is appointed and require to:

1. Select 10% or at least 10 answer books from the total number of students reviewed by
Examiner 1 at random. (3 highest, 3 middle and 3 lowest + 1 at random), If the number is
less than 10, all papers will be examined by the Second Examiner.
2. Check if there is a part of the student’s solution that has not been reviewed or marked by
Examiner 1 by using a green pen.
3. Check the summation and transfer of marks for each question to the front cover of the
answer book is correct and verified with the examiners’ signatures.
4. Need to fill in the information of the second examiner's report and send to the HEA
Division (Examination & Operations), College of Engineering Studies or upload via the
google form link provided accordingly.
5. If there is any error on the answer books checked by Second Examiner, Examiner 1 will be
instructed to review all answer books.
 STANDARD OPERATING
PROCEDURES, PROCESSES
& FORMS
Prosedur
• Persediaan sebelum
peperiksaan akhir
bermula
• Proses pengendalian
peperiksaan akhir
• Tindakan selepas
peperiksaan akhir tamat

Prosedur
• Menjelaskan kaedah
pengurusan markah
dan keputusan
peperiksaan pelajar
supaya pengijazahan
boleh dilakukan
secara sistematik dan
berintegriti.
26
 EXAMINATION SPECIFICATION TABLE (EST) 27

➢The Examination Specification Table (EST) or Jadual Spesifikasi Ujian (JSU) is adopted to ensure consistency
and fairness in designing examination questions.
➢The aim of the EST is to standardise the quality of the examination questions and to provide consistency when
designing examinations every semester.
➢ It ensures that the examination questions should have the following criteria:
a) Assess the designated COs and POs;
b) Cover the breadth and depth of the course contents;
c) Question-solving time allocation reflects the time spent for teaching and learning activities of the
course. The distribution of marks for each examination question is based on:
i. Short Question (S) – up to 7 marks
ii. Medium Question (M) – 8 to 12 marks
iii. Long Question (L) – 13 to 25 marks
d) Cover different levels of difficulty and complexity
 PREPARATION OR SETTING OF EXAMINATION QUESTIONS BY
OWNER & TEACHING TEAMS 28

➢Examination papers must be prepared by course owners and the teaching teams based on the Examination
Specification Table (EST).
➢Examiners must be meticulous in preparing examination questions by carefully taking into consideration the following
items:
1. Check the units used in figures and tables.
2. Check dimensions on each diagram carefully.
3. Check for consistency between texts, tables and diagrams.
4. Check the quality of tables, figures, and appendices.
5. Assist students by providing clear diagrams and figures.
6. Check data provided to students
7. Provide the marking scheme.
8. Ensure that results obtained are correct and logical.
➢The quality of exam question is to be assessed through the following processes:
1. Self vetting by course owners / teaching team.
 DESIGNING THE
EXAMINATION SPECIFICATION
TABLE
There are eight (8) steps in designing the Examination
Specification Table (EST) listed as follows:
1. Determine the COs and POs of the particular course;
2. Decide on the course contents and topics to be assessed;
3. Indicate the time spent for each chapter/topic to be
assessed;
4. Match the COs and POs according to the chapters/topics
of the examination questions;
5. Allocate marks for each question corresponding to the
time spent for each topic;
6. Indicate the level of difficulty for each question based
on Bloom’s Taxonomy domain. (Use Table 3.1 to assess
the level of difficulty, based on semester, as a guide);
7. Determine the distribution of marks for each
examination question based on:
a. Short Question (S) – up to 7 marks;
b. Medium Question (M) – 8 to 12 marks; and
c. Long Question (L) – 13 to 25 marks
8. The total marks for all examination questions must
correspond to the amount of time spent for each topic.
29
TABLE OF LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY FOR EACH DOMAIN BASED ON YEAR 30

• This table should

be referred to as a
guide in
addressing the
difficulty/
complexity level.
• The level of
difficulty/
complexity is
increased as the
year progresses.
 EXAMPLE OF A VETTING FORM

• The examination vetting form

consists of two (2) parts.
• Part I incorporates the COs and POs
of the course.
• Part II denotes the level of difficulty
based on education taxonomy. A
sample of the examination vetting
form is shown
• The vetting process for Complex
Engineering Problem (CP) and
Engineering Activities (EA) is also
established. 31
SAMPLE OF QUESTIONS WITH
ANSWER SCHEME ALIGNED
WITH CO-PO & DOMAIN LEVEL

32
 Step Activity Person In Charge
1 Inform to AJK CP about the due date for continuous Coordinator Center of
assessment (complex problem) for the review. Study (KP)

VETTING PROCESS FOR COMPLEX 2 Prepare questions and rubrics based on the complex Course Coordinator (KK)
problem criteria for courses that assess complex

ENGINEERING PROBLEM INSTRUMENT problems in continuous assessment based on the

template in Appendix 1.
3 Fill in Vetting Complex Problem Form (Appendix 2).
4 Submit vetting form, questions, and rubrics to the
RP.
5 Review the questions, rubrics, and schema related to Resource Person (RP)
complex problems.
6 Propose any improvement to questions, rubrics, and
schema related to the complex problems.
7 Verify the Complex Problem Vetting Form.
8 Review the questions, rubrics and answer schema Complex Problem
related to complex problems. Committee (AJK CP)
9 Propose any improvement to questions, rubrics, and
answer schema related to the complex problems and
submit those documents to RP for correction.
10 Submit the Vetting Complex Problem Form.
11 Submit to Resource Person.
12 Review the questions, rubrics and answer schema Resource Person (RP)
related to complex problems.
13 Submit questions, rubrics, answer schema to the KB.
14 Verify the Vetting Complex Problem Form. Course Coordinator (KB)
15 Inform KB/KP list of courses that needs to be reviews Complex Problem
for the complex problems. Committee (AJK CP)
16 Take action to non – compliant RP/KK/P. Head of School (KP)
17 Prepare a mapping between courses and complex Complex Problem
problems. Committee (AJK CP)
18 Submit to KP.
33
19 Prepare CQI. Head of School (KP)
GUIDELINE FOR MODERATOR & VETTING
FORM FOR COMPLEX ENGINEERING
PROBLEMS & ACTIVITIES FOR
CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT

Guideline for Moderator

• Moderators play an important role and
responsibility to ensure the successful
implementation of complex engineering
problems.
• There are several roles and
responsibilities of the moderators:
✓To evaluate the implementation of the
complex engineering problems (WP) and
complex engineering activities (EA) in the
assessments (i.e. tests, examination,
continuous assessments) in the vetting
procedure outlined by the School of Civil
Engineering (SCE) and fulfilling EAC
Standard 2020.
✓To provide comments for improvement in
the Complex Problem Vetting Form and if
needed to suggest a re-vetting process.
✓To endorse the assessments with the
implementation of WP and EA in the
Complex Problem Vetting Form.
34
SAMPLE OF PROJECT WITH COMPLEX ENGINEERING PROBLEMS
WITH RUBRICS ASSESSMENT 35
 Mapping of Programme Outcome (PO) with Knowledge Profile (WP), Complex Problems (WP) and
Complex Engineering Activities (EA)
PO PO STATEMENT WK WP/EA
Engineering Knowledge -Apply knowledge of mathematics, natural science, engineering
WK1-
PO1 fundamentals and an engineering specialization as specified in WK1 to WK4 respectively to
the solution of complex engineering problems; WK4 WP WK Profiles Definition
WK1 Natural Sciences A systematic, theory-based understanding of the
Problem Analysis: Identify, formulate, conduct research literature and analyze complex
WK1- natural sciences applicable to the discipline
PO2 engineering problems reaching substantiated conclusions using first principles of
WK4 WP
mathematics, natural sciences and engineering sciences (WK1 to WK4); WK2 Mathematics Conceptually-based mathematics, numerical
analysis, statistics and formal aspects of computer
Design/Development of Solutions - Design solutions for complex engineering problems and
design systems, components or processes that meet specified needs with appropriate and information science to support analysis and
PO3 consideration for public health and safety, cultural, societal, and environmental WK5 WP modelling applicable to the discipline
considerations (WK5)
WK3 Engineering A systematic, theory-based formulation of
Investigation – Conduct investigation of complex engineering problems using research-based fundamentals engineering fundamentals required in the
PO4 knowledge (WK8) and research methods including design of experiments, analysis and
interpretation of data, and synthesis of information to provide valid conclusions;
WK8 WP engineering discipline
WK4 Specialist Engineering specialist knowledge that provides
Modern Tool Usage - Create, select and apply appropriate techniques, resources, and
knowledge theoretical frameworks and bodies of knowledge
PO5 modern engineering and IT tools, including prediction and modelling, to complex
engineering problems, with an understanding of the limitations (WK6)
WK6 WP for the accepted practice areas in the engineering
The Engineer and Society - Apply reasoning informed by contextual knowledge to assess
discipline; much is at the forefront of the discipline
societal, health, safety, legal and cultural issues and the consequent responsibilities WK5 Engineering design Knowledge that supports engineering design in a
PO6 relevant to professional engineering practice and solutions to complex engineering WK7 WP practice area
problems (WK7);
WK6 Engineering practice Knowledge of engineering practice (technology) in
Environment and Sustainability - Understand and evaluate the sustainability and impact of the practice areas in the engineering discipline
PO7 professional engineering work in the solutions of complex engineering problems in societal
and environmental contexts. (WK7)
WK7 WP
WK7 Comprehension Comprehension of the role of engineering in society
Ethics - Apply ethical principles and commit to professional ethics and responsibilities and and identified issues in engineering practice in the
PO8 norms of engineering practice (WK7) WK7 -
discipline: ethics and the professional responsibility
of an engineer to public safety; the impacts of
Individual and Teamwork - Function effectively as an individual, and as a member or leader
PO9 in diverse teams and in multi-disciplinary setting
- - engineering activity: economic, social, cultural,
environmental and sustainability
Communication - Communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with the
engineering community and with society at large, such as being able to comprehend and WK8 Research literature Engagement with selected knowledge in the
PO10 write effective reports and design documentation, make effective presentations, and give
- EA research literature of the discipline
and receive clear instructions;

Project Management and Finance - Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of

engineering management principles and economic decision making and apply these to one’s
PO11 own work, as a member and leader in a team, to manage projects in multidisciplinary
- -
environments;
Graduate Attributes: EAC Standard 2020
Life Long Learning - Recognize the need for, and have the preparation and ability to engage
PO12 in independent and life-long learning in the broadest context of technological change.
- -
 COMPLEX ENGINEERING
WP
PROBLEM SOLVING
WP1 - Depth of Knowledge Required
MUST = in-depth engineering
HAVE knowledge at the level of one
or more of WK3, WK4, WK5,
WK6 or WK8 (WK’s)
fundamental, first principles
analytical approach
WP2 Range of Conflicting
requirement = wide &
conflicting technical, engr &
other issues
WP3 Depth of analysis = no
obvious solution, abstract
thinking, originality
WP4 Familiarity of issues =
infrequently encountered
issues
WP5 Extent of applicable codes =
outside problems
encompassed by codes for
professional engineering
WP6 Extent of stakeholder
involvement and conflicting
requirements = diverse
groups of stakeholders with
widely varying needs
WP7 Interdependence = high level Analyse high level problems including many
problems with many parts & component parts or sub-problems &
sub-problems Propose problem broken down into smaller
components or sub-problems
Descriptors for Rubric Design
Analyse the problem using specified knowledge
profile (WKs)
Evaluate the problems under such circumstance
towards providing effective solution
Compare the conflicting technical, engineering
and other issues to solve the problems
Assess the conflicting requirements and provide a
satisfactory proposal towards solving the problems
Develop the formulae/procedures to solve the
problem using suitable models
Justify creativity towards the achievement of the
formulae/procedures
Differentiate the infrequently encountered issues
in problem solving
Select formula/procedures to resolve infrequently
encountered issues
Develop solution using standards and codes of
practice for professional engineering
Justify professional engineering experiences to
resolve the problems
Differentiate the diverse groups of stakeholders
with widely varying needs
Select stakeholder interests and requirements
that give impact on the problem
EA COMPLEX ENGINEERING Descriptors for Rubrics Design
ACTIVITIES (Some or all)
EA1 Range of resources = use Elaborate functions and association with
of diverse resources different resources such as people, money,
(people, money, equipment, materials, information and
information, technologies
technologies) Justify the involvement of these resources
in fulfilling the requirements of a
successful design project.
EA2 Level of interactions = Adapt significant problems arising from
interactions between interactions between wide-ranging or
wide & conflicting conflicting technical, engineering or other
technical, engineering & issues
other issues Justify the solutions achieved arising from
the level of interactions involving wide-
ranging or conflicting technical,
engineering or other issues.
EA3 Innovation = creative use Advocate creative use of engineering
of engineering principles principles and research-based knowledge
and research-based in novel ways
knowledge Justify creativity towards the achievement
of the novelty (eg. patent/copyright/etc)
EA4 Consequences to society Organise significant consequences in a
and environment = range of contexts, characterized by
significant consequences, difficulty of prediction and mitigation
characterized by Exemplify significant consequences in a
difficulty of prediction & range of contexts, characterized by
mitigation difficulty of prediction and mitigation
EA5 Familiarity = extend Organise resolution beyond previous
beyond previous experiences routinely encountered &
experiences using Exemplify experiences to resolve the
principle-based engineering activities
approaches
CONFIDENTIALITY & SAFETY: INTEGRATED
QUESTION BANK SYSTEM (QBS)

• Confidentiality and safety of the examination papers:

Provisions of a safe room (Bilik Kebal) located at the
Academic Office. Only authorised staff is given access to
the room.
• During the pandemic, examination papers were prepared
using standard procedures, but submissions were made
via the internet, where the Examination Committee
created a restricted folder that was only available to
authorised personnel.
• All the exam papers must be checked by Vetter, verified
by Resource Person and approved by Head of Centre of
Studies.
• Recently, examination papers created on-line under the
AIMS system using the integrated Question Bank System
(QBS) must also be approved by authorised personnel and
have restricted access. This is to ensure that the
examination papers are kept confidential and secure, and
that they are taken at the same level as the hardcopy
version.
• The figure depicts the flow charts used to implement the
QBS system.
38
 MODERATION OF RESULTS 39

Moderation process aims to ensure that the grade obtained reflects the
true attainment of the students.
• Moderation of examination and non-examination results is conducted if
the total number of students score A+, A and A- and the number of failures
exceeds 50%.
• Moderators will be nominated by the Head of Centre of Studiess and
appointed by the Head of School.
• If the moderated marks were found different by more than two scales of
grade, then the re-marking process for all individual examination answer
scripts or reports will take place.
• The moderated marks will be considered as a final grade.
 • Due to Covid-19 pandemic: appropriate changes
have been made to its implementation of TLA
TEACHING, LEARNING AND activities and evaluation process of student
ASSESSMENT (TLA) DURING assessments.
COVID-19 PANDEMIC • The TLA activities : shifted from face-to-face to
online learning or hybrid.
• Effective implementation of the TLA related
activities : lecturers were given briefings and
online training on the applications that can be
used for online TLA activities.
• Learning management system (LMS) used to
conduct the class and post teaching and learning
materials are Google Classroom, Microsoft Teams
and U-Future.
• For students who do not have good internet
access, WhatsApp, Telegram, or email are used
while for students who do not have internet
facilities at all, the postal method is adopted as a
medium to convey the teaching information/
materials to the students. 40
 • Conduct of all assessments: continuous (formative) assessment
methods with a maximum of only four (4) assessments are given to
the students for each course code.
TEACHING, LEARNING AND • The types of assessment include various methods such as written
ASSESSMENT (TLA) DURING assignment, problem-based assignment, project-based assignment,
open book test, case study and others.
COVID-19 PANDEMIC
• It is encouraged to include the open-ended questions and complex
problem solving for higher order thinking skills.
• The assessment provided remains align with the percentage of the
PO-CO of each course code and domain based on year of study
• Guidelines from KPT/MQA/University/Accrediting Bodies – EAC &
ETAC are referred.
• Moderation of Assessment
• Moderation of online and F2F assessments (test, assignment and
project) for each course shall be carried out following the academic
regulations on moderation and vetting process using the vetting form
(validated by the RP and Vetter) and complex engineering problems
and complex engineering activities’ form (approved by the KPP and
Complex Problem Committee).
• The complex engineering problems and complex engineering
activities’ form MUST be finalised (approved by the KPP and Complex
Problem Committee) 1 WEEK prior to the assessments being given to
the students.
This is to fulfill the accreditation requirement on Condition of Passing
Courses by the EAC Standard 2020. 41
 • There is a need to continuously strived to improve on the
quality management services provided.
• External assessors were engaged to audit and comment on the
CONTINUAL QUALITY processes as well as the curriculum offered. Through
comments and feedback, the CQI could be realized and
IMPROVEMENT (CQI) closed.
• Audit exercises by InQKA, UiTM are conducted annually, and its
findings will be made available together with the actions taken
by the school on the comments given. The process would
ensure that all scopes for improvement noted would be
resolved prior to the subsequent audit. UiTM was awarded self-
accreditation (SWA) effective on 2 January 2017 based on the
SWA exercise conducted in 2015 given by the Malaysian
Qualification Agency (MQA) for its excellence in quality.
• The monitoring of the quality management and processes at
school level is the responsibility of the Head of School with the
assistance of the Quality Assurance Committee.
• Under the Quality Assurance Committee, ten (10) sub-
committees were formed to take responsibility monitoring
respective aspects of quality. The chairperson of each
committee will present their activities and findings bi-annually
to the Quality Assurance Committee chaired by the Head of
School.
• One of the committees is an Internal Audit Committee.
42
 INTERNAL AUDIT TEAM

• Internal Audit Team carries out periodic internal audits. After

each audit, a management review meeting was conducted to
discuss the findings from the audit and identify the corrective and
preventive actions.
• The common schedule of audit exercise as follows: Course file
audit (once per semester), Laboratory Audit (twice a year) and
quality procedure audit (twice per year)
• Beginning 2022, the audit exercises is scheduled by Quality and
Strategic Unit, College of Engineering.
• Working towards improving the services provided, the process
helps to identify any shortcomings and appropriate actions taken
to improve the situation when the needs arises.
• The internal audit team also helps to ensure all staff members
comply with all OBE requirements and these are documented by
the lecturers as an Audit Course File.
• The sample of audit analysis on the course file is shown. 43
44
 Acknowledgement and
References

My gratitude and appreciation to the

followings:
• CAES, UTeM for the opportunity on sharing of
best practices and experiences from UiTM and
EAD, Board of Engineers Malaysia
• UiTM for more providing a great platform for
self development for more than 28 years
• Engineering Accreditation Department, BEM
for the great opportunity to contribute to the
quality of engineering education &
accreditation in Malaysia and abroad
• This presentation was prepared with
reference to various trainings under UiTM and 45
Engineering Accreditation Department, BEM.