International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)

Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2024, pp. 1673~1682

ISSN: 2252-8822, DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v13i3.26996  1673

Analysis of program outcomes attainment for diploma in civil

engineering at Universiti Teknologi MARA Pahang

Nur Asmaliza Mohd Noor, Noor Safwan Muhamad, Rohaya Alias, Asmidar Alias, Siti Hawa Rosli
Civil Engineering Studies, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA Pahang, Pahang, Malaysia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: Analysis of program outcomes involves the assessment of the learning
objectives based on cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains and their
Received Mar 6, 2023 attainment is measured using both direct and indirect approaches. This study
Revised Jul 16, 2023 aims to assess the program outcomes attainment for the civil engineering
Accepted Aug 7, 2023 diploma program at Universiti Teknologi MARA Pahang. The program
outcomes attainment in this study was obtained from two categories of
students based on cohort 20174 using the Plan ID 6541, namely i) 257
Keywords: graduated on-time students and ii) 365 overall students including extended
students. The attainments were analyzed quantitatively using key
Attainment performance indicators for each program outcome and program performance
Cognitive domain indicators for the overall attainment of program outcomes. Based on the key
Engineering education performance indicator, the results reveal that nine program outcomes are
Performance indicator indicated as excellent while three program outcomes are indicated as good.
Program outcomes Meanwhile, based on the program performance indicator, this cohort is
indicated as well performed where 9 out of 12 program outcomes recorded
above 70% average attainment. Various effective continuous quality
improvement (CQI) program can be identified by the school’s committee
based on these findings to further enhance the program outcomes attainment.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Noor Safwan Muhamad
Civil Engineering Studies, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA Pahang
Lintasan Semarak, Bandar Jengka, 26400 Bandar Tun Razak, Pahang, Malaysia
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Outcome based education (OBE) focuses more on the outcomes and the quality of graduates upon
completion of their studies and allows the higher learning institution to enrich the value of the program by
enhancing the learning capability of the students [1]. In order to create more graduates who fulfill the market
demand, numerous assessment methodologies for courses have been devised and deployed in higher
education [2]. Many studies has been carried out on the implementation of OBE in Malaysia context such as
by using indirect measurement through survey with alumni from the Faculty of Engineering and Built
Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, program outcomes (PO) related to engineering knowledge
and complex engineering design using direct measurement for final year students in the Faculty of Civil
Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Shah Alam, evaluation of the course learning outcomes
(CLO) attained by engineering students in the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, UiTM, Shah Alam and
student development progress and enhancement which the data is gained from the program outcome of
diploma in civil engineering, UiTM Pulau Pinang [3]–[6].
Engineering plays a crucial part in boosting worldwide well-being thus it is the obligation for
engineering education to remain relevant and effective [3]. The rapid speed of technological changes raises
some issues in academia with regards to keeping the curriculum in line with the demands of the field,

Journal homepage: http://ijere.iaescore.com

1674  ISSN: 2252-8822

ensuring that it is used effectively as well as improving its quality [7]. However, several opinions have been
debated on the quality of university education systems due to the diversity of viewpoints and methodologies
used to evaluate the effectiveness and standard of education [8].
Accreditation process is a formal form of confirmation that a program run by the respective higher
learning institute meets the reputable standard of practice and is considered competent to carry out
assessment thus producing quality of graduates and meeting a set level of competency which required by the
employer and is one of the best ways to maintain the quality of the program [3]. Engineering Technology
Accreditation Council (ETAC) which is located under Engineering Accreditation Department is the
regulatory body that is responsible to accredit the technical programs in higher learning institutions in
Malaysia [9]. The purpose of accreditation is to ensure that engineering programs satisfy the requirements of
the Board of Engineers, Malaysia [9].
Course outcome (CO), PO and program educational objective (PEO) are phases of outcomes that
need to be measured in OBE. The PEOs are broad statements that describe the future careers and professional
accomplishments of those who had participated in the program after substantial years of study leading up to
graduation. The POs are specific statements that explain the qualities that engineering program graduates
should be able to have while the COs are statements about what outcomes a course should expect students to
achieve [10]. Pramono et al. [11] stated that the CO is evaluated at the end of the course, the PO are
evaluated upon graduation, and the PEO results are evaluated after three to five years from the date of
graduation.
One of the main criteria under accreditation requirements is the measurement of program outcomes
(POs) attainment. The POs for each program formulated by the higher learning institute must be consistent
with the engineering graduate attributes, such as: i) engineering knowledge; ii) problem analysis;
iii) design/development of solutions; iv) investigation; v) modern tool usage; vi) the engineer and society;
vii) environment and sustainability; viii) ethics; ix) individual and teamwork; x) communication; xi) project
management and finance; and xii) life long learning. These POs can be reached through course outcomes
(COs) [9]. The following section will discuss the process involved in measuring the POs attainment.

2. PROGRAM OUTCOMES
The outcomes which students should have achieved by the time they graduate are known as POs.
Program outcomes guides on what a program is supposed to do, achieve, or attain for its own betterment
and/or in support of institutional or divisional goals, and are usually based on numbers, needs and growth.
According to the ETAC manual, POs are statements that indicate what students are expected to know, be able
to execute, or acquire by the time they graduate [7], [12].
A study reported that attributes in the PO are frequently linked to the education that the student has
received. Every semester, the achievement of PO must be tracked, and corrective steps must be taken if the
attainment does not match the performance indicator set for the program. This requires the implementation of
continual quality improvement (CQI) method to improve the POs attainment. Based on this, if these
processes are not conducted, then it is difficult for instructors to evaluate the problems that occur in the
programs they offer [13]. Engineering technology accreditation council Malaysia, ETAC, provides rules for
institutions to follow as to achieve academic excellence which then leads to accreditation. The curriculum
and course outcomes are designed according to these guidelines. The program outcomes must precisely
highlight the main components based on the goals of that program. Failures in curriculum design will result
in misleading outcomes [7].
Rao stated that globalization demands mobility of engineering skills to ease utilization of technical
skills from accessible locations, wherever necessary [14]. A strong foundation in mathematics and science, in
addition to training in the various subfields of engineering, is an essential component of any education in
engineering. In addition to this, he asserts that engineers will be able to deal with difficult probabilities and
deliver complicated societal issues. Therefore, it is the responsibility of engineering educators to guarantee
that students graduate with the knowledge and abilities necessary to pursue careers as successful professional
engineers or technicians. This can be accomplished by abandoning the conventional approach to teaching in
favor of an outcome-based education that places an emphasis on learning that is centered on the learner [14],
[15]. Thus, the 12 POs for the diploma in civil engineering have been established to describe what the
students should have learned and be able to accomplish by the time they receive their diplomas. These POs
refer to the broad characteristics of knowledge (cognitive), skills (psychomotor), and behavior (affective) that
students are required to acquire over the course of three years in completing an engineering technician
diploma and detail of the 12 POs are listed in Table 1.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2024: 1673-1682
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  1675

Table 1. Program outcomes for diploma in civil engineering program [9]

Upon graduation, students should be able to
PO1 Apply knowledge of mathematics, natural science, engineering fundamentals, and civil engineering knowledge to wide
practical procedures and practices
PO2 Identify and analyze well-defined civil engineering problems reaching substantiated conclusions using codified methods
of analysis specific to the civil engineering activity.
PO3 Design solutions for well-defined technical problems and assist with the design of systems, components, or processes to
meet civil engineering needs with appropriate consideration for public health and safety, cultural, societal, and
environmental considerations.
PO4 Conduct investigations of civil engineering’s well-defined problems; locate and search relevant codes and catalogs for
civil engineering, conduct standard tests and measurements that relevant for civil engineering
PO5 Apply appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering and IT tools to well-defined civil engineering
problems, with an awareness of the limitations.
PO6 Demonstrate knowledge of the societal, health, safety, legal and cultural issues and the consequent responsibilities
relevant to civil engineering technician practice and solutions to well-defined civil engineering problems.
PO7 Understand and evaluate the sustainability and impact of civil engineering technician work in the solution of well-
defined civil engineering problems in societal and environmental contexts.
PO8 Understand and commit to professional ethics and responsibilities and norms of civil engineering technician practice.
PO9 Function effectively as an individual, and as a member in diverse technical teams.
PO10 Communicate effectively on well-defined civil engineering activities with the engineering community and with society
at large, by being able to comprehend the work of others, document their work, and give and receive clear instructions
PO11 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of engineering management principles and apply these to one’s work, as a
member or leader in a technical team and manage projects in multidisciplinary environments
PO12 Recognize the need for and can engage in independent updating in the civil engineering technical knowledge.

The engineering program assesses and evaluates students on the knowledge and skills components.
Thus, there are three classifications of the POs under cognitive domain, two POs under psychomotor domain,
and seven POs under affective domain. The cognitive domain is a thinking domain that relates to how to
utilize knowledge, focusing on intellectual skills. While the physical and kinetic abilities that can be
monitored throughout the progressive of mastery the physical skills are represented by the psychomotor
domain. Affective domains deal with how one feels about things (attitude), which can be communicated
through one's thoughts and beliefs. The attitude component is assumed to have been acquired once students
complete the program and it is not explicitly assessed. Hence, to reduce the discrepancies in the assessment
of soft skills, the standardized assessment rubrics such as communication, teamwork, leadership, lifelong
learning, and ethics are provided [4]. Table 2 shows the classification of the POs according to Bloom’s three
main domains.

Table 2. Classification of POs into bloom’s domains

Bloom’s domain Program outcomes
Cognitive PO1, PO2, PO3
Psychomotor PO4, PO5
Affective PO6, PO7, PO8, PO9, PO10, PO11 and PO12

2.1. Way of program outcomes assessment and evaluation

Testing, assessment, and evaluation are the notions that are strongly tied to educational measuring.
All educational assessments attempt to i) reach acceptable conclusions about students' aptitude, achievement,
or interests; ii) track student’s progress toward specific educational goals; and iii) improve teaching and
learning [16]. Assessment tools for measuring POs can be divided into direct and indirect methods. The
evaluation of outcomes that is based on direct assessment is more appropriate since it evaluates the specific
knowledge or abilities of the students in a more direct manner. The direct method assessment is through final
examination, tests, practical tests, assignments, projects, presentations, and others. For psychomotor
assessment, the assessment tools are normally hands-on, which introduce the students to the real engineering
practice [17].
The assessment is formulated corresponding to the designated POs for the course. The indirect
methods, including the external examiner reports, feedback from industrial advisory panels and industrial
training surveys, provide an insight on the effectiveness of the program in developing graduate attributes
manifested in the POs. When each semester is over, the contribution from all the types of assessment can be
used to measure each PO by having the average PO and these results are utilized to compile an annual report
evaluating overall program outcomes [4]. Table 3 shows various assessment tools for measuring POs of
diploma in civil engineering courses.

Analysis of programme outcomes attainment for diploma in civil engineering … (Nur Asmaliza Mohd Noor)
1676  ISSN: 2252-8822

Table 3. Assessment tools for measuring POs

Assessment tools
PO Domain
Direct Indirect
PO1 Cognitive Assignment/Project report, test, and External examiner’s report
PO2 examination Industrial advisory panel
PO3 Industrial training survey
PO4 Psychomotor Practical tests, Civil engineering
PO5 Design project, Industrial training
PO6 Affective Laboratory report, Lab observation,
PO7 Assignment/Project, Oral presentation
PO8
PO9
PO10
PO11
PO12

2.2. Evaluation of the program outcomes

The evaluation of POs is based on bloom’s domain and taxonomies as shown in Figure 1 to indicate
the approach that has been adopted in developing methods of assessment and evaluation of POs. There are
three approaches that have been adopted such as classification of POs into Bloom’s domains, development of
performance criteria matrix and development of strategies/action. All these approaches are to make sure the
assessment and evaluation are fair and aligned with the designed POs.

1.0 - Classification of POs into Bloom’s three major

domains namely, Cognitive, Psychomotor and Affective

2.0 – Development of Performance Criteria Matrix

based on Bloom’s Taxonomy to evaluate POs

3.0 - Development of Strategies/Actions &

Methods of Assessment for the evaluation of POs
(Includes Well-Defined Problem Solving and
Well-Defined Engineering Activities)

Figure 1. Approach adopted in developing methods of assessment and evaluation of POs

2.3. Determination of program outcomes attainment

The accumulating model is used to determine the PO attainment for this diploma program, in which
all courses contributing to the POs attainment are considered in the calculation. The assessment method
includes student’s works and other tangible materials that demonstrate achievement of the POs. Each
individual course's associated POs that need to be measured are mapped to the respective Course Outcomes.
Table 4 illustrates the distribution of POs i.e., PO1 and PO3 based on the assessments in Basic Hydraulics
whilst Table 5 illustrates an example attainment of PO1 and PO3 for two students: Student ID 1 and Student
ID 2. This example was determined by the respective scores they obtained in the Basic Hydraulics course and
the sample of calculation to determine the true attainment of PO1 and PO3 for this course for Student ID 1 is
presented next after Table 5.

Table 4. Distribution of POs for basic hydraulics course addressing PO1 and PO3
Assessment POs Full marks Weightage
Assignment 1 PO1 100 7%
Assignment 2 PO3 20 3%
Common Test PO1 10 6%
PO3 40 24%
Final Exam PO1 19 11.4%
PO3 81 48.6%
Total PO1 - 24.4%
PO3 - 75.6%

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2024: 1673-1682
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  1677

Table 5. Example calculation for PO1 and PO3 based on individual students’ marks in basic hydraulics
Assessment POs Full marks Student ID 1 Student ID 2
Assignment 1 PO1 100 80 60
Assignment 2 PO3 20 15 18
Common test PO1 10 6 5
PO3 40 29 18
Final exam PO1 19 12 11
PO3 81 62 35
PO Attainment (%) PO1 - 67.2 56.6
PO3 - 75.2 45.6

PO1 attainment by the first student (student ID 1) is calculated as (1).

80 6 12
𝑃𝑂1 = (7%) + (6%) + (11.4%) = 16.4% (1)
100 10 19

Therefore, the true attainment of PO1 is calculated as (2).

16.4
𝑃𝑂1 = 𝑥100% = 67.2% (2)
24.4

Meanwhile, PO3 attainment by the first student (student ID 1) is calculated as (3).

15 29 62
𝑃𝑂3 = (3%) + (24%) + (48.6%) = 56.85% (3)
20 40 81

Therefore, the true attainment of PO3 is calculated as (4).

56.85
𝑃𝑂3 = 𝑥100% = 75.2% (4)
75.6

The calculation is then applied to the other students who enrolled for the basic hydraulics course, for
example 75 students. Then PO attainments for all students are added and divided by 75 to obtain the average
PO attainment for the course. To properly assess PO attainment for the program, a methodology for
evaluating performance that is based on each PO as a main thrust and includes specific criteria for
performance is being developed. It is essential, however, that the knowledge or abilities of the students that
are reflected in a score or grade serve as the primary focal point, and not the grade itself [18], [19]. This is
agreed by Telsang that designing delivery and assessment to suit the outcomes of the program are
challenging but measuring and redefining the student’s achievement are more complicated [20].
Some programs might use the 70% determination value to determine the satisfaction criterion to
decide whether POs meet expectation or not. Then, if the program outcomes have low assessment values, the
program needs backtracking to point out their shortages [21]. The teaching and learning process is continued
if the correlation is high enough to satisfy expectations; otherwise, it is adjusted to raise the level of
attainment [22]. Wahab et al. has conducted a study at the Department of Electrical and Electronic that shows
the element of POs direct assessment instrument that is based on the knowledge and skills of students. They
used the average POs data obtained from all the selected courses to evaluate overall achievement of POs and
the findings suggest that every PO is successful in exceeding the predetermined score for the respective
academic year [23]. In the same vein, the objective of this paper is to assess the POs attainment for the
diploma in civil engineering program at UiTM Pahang. Moreover, the purpose of this study is to fulfill the
respective research questions:
i) Can the program demonstrate whether students have obtained the desired score?
ii) How does the course grade conceal precise achievement of the anticipated criteria?
iii) Can students demonstrate an acceptable level of performance in each program outcome?

3. RESEARCH METHOD
The program outcomes (POs) attainments were collected from summative assessments throughout
student enrolment for six semesters. The marks were collected from various types of assessments as shown in
Table 3 gathered for all courses based on the accumulating model. The performance criteria are categorized
into two: i) key performance indicator (KPI) for each PO; and ii) program performance indicator for overall
PO attainment (number of POs achieve average 70%). The KPI for each PO is categorized based on the PO
Score for each PO. As shown in Table 6, the KPI is classified as excellent when the average PO score is 70%

Analysis of programme outcomes attainment for diploma in civil engineering … (Nur Asmaliza Mohd Noor)
1678  ISSN: 2252-8822

and above, good when the PO score is 50% to 69% and fail when the PO score is below 50%. This indicator
reflects the need for intervention programs for continual quality improvement of the program.

Table 6. Program outcomes attainment through formal assessments

Key performance indicator for each PO
PO score (%) KPI category
70 - 100 Excellent
50 - 69 Good
0 - 49 Fail

Meanwhile, for the program performance indicator, the overall POs attainment was calculated based
on the numbers of PO that achieve an average of 70%. The program is classified as well performed if 9 to 12
PO achieves 70%, performed if 4 to 8 PO achieves 70% and concern if it is less than that. Table 7 shows the
details.

Table 7. Program performance indicator for overall POs attainment

Overall PO attainment (number of PO achieve average 70%)
Indicator No. of POs
Well performed 9-12
Performed 4-8
Concern 0-3

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Analysis on program outcomes achievement
The data presented in Figure 2 are based on the analysis of PO attainment for cohort 20174
(September 2017) which is the first batch using the Plan ID 6541 at UiTM Pahang that has been accredited
by ETAC. Students were analyzed based on two categories: i) students who graduated on time (GOT) and
ii) overall students (GOT plus the extended students). There were 257 out of 365 students, or 70.4% able to
GOT, while 365 students are in second category.

Figure 2. Average PO attainment for GOT (70.4 %) and overall students from 20174 cohort

The highest PO attainment for both categories is PO8 (understand and commit to professional ethics
and responsibilities and norms of technician practice) which recorded a score of 84% for both. While the
lowest PO attainment is PO1 (Apply knowledge of mathematics, natural science, engineering fundamentals,
and civil engineering knowledge to wide practical procedures and practices) and PO2 (Identify and analyze
well-defined civil engineering problems reaching substantiated conclusions using codified methods of
analysis specific to the civil engineering activity). For GOT students, they score 59% for both PO1 and PO2,
while for overall students, the attainment is 58% for both POs. The other POs are at the range of 61% - 83%.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2024: 1673-1682
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  1679

The positive aspect is all the POs are above 50% marks, which achieve the KPI. Therefore, this information
provides a sight to the department to identify the possible roots which contributed to this lacking, which is
knowledge and problem analysis, thus can proceed with CQI actions to improve students’ performance for
the upcoming semester.
Table 8 provides the value of program outcomes attainment for both categories of students, and the
data is separated according to domains which are cognitive, psychomotor, and affective. For GOT students,
the highest attainment is dominated by the psychomotor domain with an average of 78.5%. Whereas, for the
overall cohort, the highest attainment is from the affective domain with 77.7%. However, both categories
share the lowest domain which is cognitive. The cognitive courses which cater PO1 and PO2 are introduced
in the first year of study. The progression was made for cognitive domain concentrated in PO3 at the second
and third year. The other POs, PO4 to PO12 are assessed mostly in the second and third year. The results
showed that students’ progression is due to experience, maturity, and familiarity with university systems. The
program has a lot of hand-on assessments in the laboratory and field work, therefore, higher marks in
psychomotor are anticipated. Thus, this is aligned with the expectation that technical graduates need to
complement their technical knowledge and awareness on the professional standard, environmental and
societal demands [24], [25].

Table 8. POs attainment for 20174 students

GOT students of 20174 cohort Overall students of 20174 cohort
Bloom’s domain
C P A C P A
PO1 59 58
PO2 59 58
PO3 62 61
PO4 80 79
PO5 77 76
PO6 75 74
PO7 75 77
PO8 84 84
PO9 75 75
PO10 83 83
PO11 75 74
PO12 81 77
Average (%) 60.0 78.5 78.3 59 77.5 77.7

Based on the key performance indicator for each PO, nine POs are indicated as excellent (70%-
100%) while three POs are indicated as good (50%-69%). This cohort is indicated as well performed where 9
out of 12 POs achieve above 70% average attainment. With a more detailed analysis at individual level, the
management can identify the specific students with low performance of POs. From that, suitable intervention
programs at individual, course, and program level such as workshops to enhance students’ soft skills can be
implemented as the CQI program. As an alternative, students of diploma in Civil Engineering at Universiti
Teknologi MARA Pahang can also assess their individual PO attainment for self-monitoring and
improvement.

4.2. Comparison with similar research

Thakkar and Landge [26] conducted a study that examined the use of direct and indirect methods to
assess the attainment of PO for engineering program accreditation. It provides teaching faculty with the
opportunity to identify gaps and take appropriate measures to enhance the overall proficiency of the learners.
Amirtharaj et al. [27] conducted additional research that demonstrated the implementation of a systematic
assessment approach to achieve a thorough evaluation in an engineering college. The findings from this study
informed decisions and initiatives aimed at enhancing the program. The effective utilization of suitable
strategies, such as setting and refining objectives and outcomes, as well as evaluating the achieved outcomes,
not only ensured quality assurance and accreditation but also yielded various other advantages.
Rajak et al. [28] conducted an evaluation of PO and PEO using both direct and indirect assessment
tools. Their study recognized the value of such assessments in validating students' performance and their
contribution to program accreditation. Furthermore, the findings highlighted the importance of these
assessments in meeting the requirements set forth by various government bodies for program assessment and
accreditation. Researchers also explored the utilization of PO attainment to redesign CO and PO, aligning
them with the evolving industry demands [29]. Numerous engineering institutes employ direct quantitative
measurements of PO that are connected to the graduate attributes (GA). By utilizing various assessments, this
measurement approach facilitates the continuous monitoring of students' GA attainment until graduation.

Analysis of programme outcomes attainment for diploma in civil engineering … (Nur Asmaliza Mohd Noor)
1680  ISSN: 2252-8822

This systematic process allows for the implementation of intervention programs before graduation, aiding
students in achieving the desired GA by the conclusion of their academic journey [30]. The finding from this
study on the need for PO attainments analysis is aligned with previous studies conducted by different
researchers, albeit the differences in approaches. Providing credential data of POs are crucial to represent
students’ performances and been used for instance; i) program accreditation from relevant agencies; ii) to
assess student performance; iii) provide suitable intervention program for students; and iv) data to support
review or redesign existing curriculum.

5. CONCLUSION
The PO attainment for diploma in civil engineering students for cohort 20174 using Plan ID 6541 at
Universiti Teknologi MARA Pahang meets the performance standards requirement based on the key
performance indicator and program performance indicator. Attainment in PO8 is dominant, compared to
other POs for both GOT and overall students categories. The achievement of PO1 and PO2 for both
categories of students was found to be the lowest. The findings of this study not only can be used to identify
which domain and elements that need to be improved, but it also can be used as an indicator of whether the
diploma in civil engineering program has met the requirements set by ETAC. The overall POs attainment can
serve as a benchmark to the next cohort. Besides, from the program administrator perspectives, they must
ensure that the program remains relevant, aligned with the national inspiration and meet the current market
demand hence the sustainability of the program can be maintained.
There is a limitation that should be considered in this study in the aspect of data collection which
relied solely on the data from the 20174 cohort. Therefore, a detailed study involving more cohorts is
required so that the PO attainment trends for the civil engineering diploma program can be presented in a
more comprehensive manner. Furthermore, it is suggested that future research endeavors in evaluating the
PO attainment to investigate in-depth the PO attainment based on the gender of students. Additionally,
exploring alternative methods of analysis such as statistical techniques or modern tools to assess the overall
achievement of PO is recommended. The future researchers can also assess CO and learning outcomes data
to make important decisions that can enhance the quality of the program.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Universiti Teknologi MARA Pahang and all
parties who were indirectly involved in the completion of this study.

REFERENCES
[1] P. H. Sun and S. Y. Lee, “The importance and challenges of outcomebased education - A case study in a private higher education
institution,” Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 253–278, 2020, doi: 10.32890/mjli2020.17.2.9.
[2] R. Alias, N. M. Saim, N. A. M. Noor, and S. H. Rosli, “Cognitive domain performance for non-laboratory embedded and
laboratory embedded course,” International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 206–
222, 2020, doi: 10.26803/ijlter.19.4.13.
[3] H. Basri, A. B. C. Man, W. H. W. Badaruzzaman, and M. J. M. Nor, “Malaysia and the Washington Accord: What It Takes for
Full Membership,” International Journal of Engineering and Technology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 64–73, 2004.
[4] C. M. Mat Isa, W. Tahir, A. Halim, A. Ghani, J. Ahmad, and H. M. Saman, “OBE implementation and assessment for integrated
design project (IDP) course at the Faculty of Civil Engineering, UiTM, Shah Alam: A Practical Approach,” in UiTM OBE
Conference, 2013, pp. 1–6.
[5] R. A. Rashid and R. Abdullah, “Application of Rasch-based ESPEGS model in measuring generic skills of engineering students: a
new paradigm,” Advances in Engineering Education, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 591–602, 2008.
[6] A. Manaff Ismail, R. Ismail, F. A. A. Zakwan, and B. Nizam Ismail, “Implementation and assessment of outcome based education
(OBE) in the Faculty of Civil Engineering at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM),” 2010 2nd International Congress on
Engineering Education: Transforming Engineering Education to Produce Quality Engineers, ICEED2010, 2010, pp. 211–214,
doi: 10.1109/ICEED.2010.5940793.
[7] G. Kasilingam, K. Nithiyananthan, and P. R. Mani, “Implementation and assessment of outcome based education in engineering
education,” International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 117, no. 17, pp. 217–228, 2017, [Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322117637
[8] T. Díaz-Leyva et al., “The perception of Engineering students toward teaching performance on online learning during COVID-19
pandemic,” International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 744–752, 2022, doi:
10.11591/ijere.v11i2.22072.
[9] Board of Engineer Malaysia (BEM), “Engineering programme accreditation standard 2020,” Engineering Accreditation Council,
2020. [Online]. Available: http://www.bem.org.my/engineering-accreditation-council.
[10] A. Kavitha, K. Immanuvel, A. James, K. A. Harish, and V. Rajamani, “An empirical study on assessment and attainment method
of course outcome and programme outcome for nba tier ii accreditation in engineering colleges through outcome based education
(OBE),” Article in International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 117, no. 22, pp. 25–28, 2017, [Online].
Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323695465.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2024: 1673-1682
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  1681

[11] B. N. S. R. Pramono, W. Mansor, M. F. Latip, H. Mohamad, and S. A. C. Abdullah, “Analysis of graduates performance based on
programme educational objective assessment for an electrical engineering degree,” Asian Journal of University Education,
vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 303–309, 2020, doi: 10.24191/ajue.v16i3.10224.
[12] M. Besterfield-Sacre et al., “Defining the outcomes: A framework for EC-2000,” IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 43, no. 2,
pp. 100–110, 2000, doi: 10.1109/13.848060.
[13] U. A. U. Amirulddin, M. Osman, and F. A. Hamid, “Analysis of programme outcomes achievement for electrical engineering
programmes in UNITEN,” 2009 International Conference on Engineering Education, ICEED2009 - Embracing New Challenges
in Engineering Education, 2009, pp. 148–152, doi: 10.1109/ICEED.2009.5490596.
[14] O. R. S. Rao, “Outcomes based engineering education: Need of the hour,” The Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 1–14, Jul.
2013.
[15] K. B. Malagi, V. Kumar Swamy, and B. S. Anami, “A novel method for attainment measurement of CO’s and PO’s for tier-II
institutions,” Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, vol. 29, no. Special issue, 2016, doi:
10.16920/jeet/2016/v0i0/85676.
[16] G. J. Cizek and C. A. Agger, “Measurement in education in the United States,” May 2013, doi: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-
0060.
[17] K. V. M. Vinod, K. Girish, T. Amit, A. C. Giriyapur, and I. G. Siddhalingeshwar, “To enhance student knowledge and skills in
manufacturing technology laboratory through PBL and OBE,” Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, vol. 35, no. 1,
pp. 52–59, 2021, doi: 10.16920/jeet/2021/v35i1/22056.
[18] J. Makinda et al., “Assessing the achievement of program outcome on environment and sustainability: a case study in engineering
education,” in Conference: 2nd Regional Conference of Campus Sustainability, 2015, pp. 47–46.
[19] G. Rogers, “Do grades make the grade for program assessment?” ABET Quarterly News Source, 2003.
[20] M. T. Telsang, “Outcome Based Education - Design delivery and assessment of product design and development course at
undergraduate engineering program,” Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, vol. 28, no. Special issue, p. 145, 2015,
doi: 10.16920/ijerit/2015/v0i0/59597.
[21] H. A. M. Abdeljaber and S. Ahmad, “Program outcomes assessment method for multi- academic accreditation bodies: Computer
science program as a case study,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 23–35, 2017,
doi: 10.3991/ijet.v12i05.6410.
[22] K. S. A. Kumar, B. Worku, S. M. Hababa, R. Balakrishna, and A. Y. Prasad, “Outcome-based education: A case study on course
outcomes, program outcomes and attainment for big data analytics course,” Journal of Engineering Education Transformations,
vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 63–72, 2021, doi: 10.16920/jeet/2021/v35i2/153364.
[23] H. F. A. Wahab, A. Ayob, W. M. D. W. Zaki, H. Hussain, A. Hussain, and S. S. Mokri, “Program outcomes measurement and
assessment processes,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 18, pp. 49–55, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.05.008.
[24] M. A. Embi, Panduan Amalan Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Berkesan. Pusat Pembangunan Akademik (in Malay), 2010.
[25] N. F. Ramli, O. Talib, S. A. Hassan, and U. K. A. Manaf, “Rasch analysis and differential item functioning of STEM teachers’
instructional preparedness instrument for urban and rural teachers,” International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive
Education and Development, vol. 7, no. 4, 2018, doi: 10.6007/ijarped/v7-i4/4848.
[26] R. R Thakkar and I. Landge, “Attainment of course outcome and programme outcome: direct and indirect method,” SSRN
Electronic Journal, 2022, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4026446.
[27] S. Amirtharaj, G. Chandrasekaran, K. Thirumoorthy, and K. Muneeswaran, “A systematic approach for assessment of attainment
in outcome-based education,” Higher Education for the Future, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 8–29, 2022, doi: 10.1177/23476311211017744.
[28] A. Rajak, A. K. Shrivastava, and A. K. Tripathi, “An approach to evaluate program outcomes and program educational objectives
through direct and indirect assessment tools,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, vol. 14, no. 23,
pp. 85–97, 2019, doi: 10.3991/ijet.v14i23.11018.
[29] H. M. Shaikh and P. A. Kumar, “Implementing an application for attainment calculation of program outcomes and course
outcomes for courses of university affiliated engineering programs,” International Journal of Engineering and Advanced
Technology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 49–56, 2022, doi: 10.35940/ijeat.d3409.0411422.
[30] L. H. Ngu, C. C. V. Sia, M. H. Lee, R. Lakshmanan, J. C. Lai, and T. S. Ling, “Engineering graduate attribute attainment
measurement models,” Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 77–87, 2022, doi:
10.1080/22054952.2022.2162672.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Nur Asmaliza Mohd Noor is a Ph.D. holder and Associate Professor at the Civil
Engineering Studies, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA Pahang, Malaysia.
She is a certified professional engineer (P. Eng.). Her research interests include hydraulic
engineering, water quality, wetland, stormwater quality and education engineering. She can be
contacted through email: [email protected].

Analysis of programme outcomes attainment for diploma in civil engineering … (Nur Asmaliza Mohd Noor)
1682  ISSN: 2252-8822

Noor Safwan Muhamad is a senior lecturer at the Civil Engineering Studies,

College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA Pahang, Malaysia. He is also the
coordinator of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) for the Diploma in Civil Engineering
Programme. His research focus is on renewable energy, environmental and engineering
education. He can be contacted through email: [email protected].

Rohaya Alias is a PhD holder and senior lecturer at the Civil Engineering Studies,
College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA Pahang, Malaysia. She is a certified
professional technologist (P. Tech). Her research interests include geotechnical engineering,
slope stabilization and education engineering. She can be contacted through email:
[email protected].

Asmidar Alias is a senior lecturer at the Civil Engineering Studies, College of

Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA Pahang, Malaysia. Her research interests include
soil mechanics, soil improvement, engineering education and volunteerism. She is a member
of Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM). She can be contacted through email:
[email protected].

Siti Hawa Rosli is a senior lecturer at the Civil Engineering Studies, College of
Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA Pahang), Malaysia. Her research interests include
hydraulic engineering, water quality, rainfall data analysis and education engineering. She is a
member of Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM). She can be contacted by email:
[email protected].

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2024: 1673-1682