MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992606393 · doi:10.5539/ies.v1n4p147

Implementation of Outcome-Based Education in Universiti Putra Malaysia: A Focus on Students’ Learning Outcomes

2008· article· en· W1992606393 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohd Ghazali Mohayidin, Turiman Suandi, Ghazali Mustapha, Mohd Majid Konting, Norfaryanti Kamaruddin, Nor Azirawani Man, Azura Adam, Siti Norziah Abdullah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychomotor learningPsychologyCognitionChristian ministryOutcome-based educationOutcome (game theory)Medical educationMathematics educationCognitive skillFocus groupHigher educationSet (abstract data type)Quality (philosophy)Teaching methodPedagogyCurriculumComputer scienceMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The move towards applying outcome-based education in teaching and learning at tertiary education level has become an important topic in Malaysia. Apart from the three learning domains; namely, cognitive, psychomotor and affective, the Ministry of Higher Education has determined eight learning outcomes which are important in providing wholesome quality education to students. Universiti Putra Malaysia has conducted a study to determine the extent to which these learning outcomes have been achieved. The result shows the overall perceived achievements were as follows: cognitive domain was at level four, psychomotor domain at level four and affective domain at level three. The Ministry’s set of learning outcomes revealed the following results: The highest score went to providing KNOWLEDGE to students, while the least achievable learning outcome was MANAGERIAL AND ENTREPRENEURIAL SKILLS. The results infer that soft-skills among students were lacking and this problem needs to be addressed quickly and effectively.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.416 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEducational Assessment and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207