Direct Measurement and Evaluation for Mechanical Engineering Programme Outcomes: Impact on Continuous Improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) is a research university that continuously undergoes an audit and accreditation process for the management of its courses. The Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment (FKAB) is subjected to such processes, one of them is the auditing conducted by the Engineering Accreditation Council (EAC), which gives recognition to engineering programmes in Malaysia. The criteria that have been set by the EAC requires the faculty to measure and evaluate graduates based directly on the course outcomes (CO) and programme outcomes (POs) to ensure that they are able to achieve the programme and course objectives. This paper discusses a method developed for the measurement and evaluation of POs which is a direct measurement for assessing the courses offered in the mechanical engineering programme. Assessment templates are developed using a Microsoft Excel based on the data presented on the grade coordination meetings conducted at the end of each semester. The data used for this study were semester 2 2010/2011 session, and semester 1 session 2011/2012. Based on the results obtained, the majority of the courses achieves more than 80% for course level monitoring for their individual PO achievement except for five subjects. For programme level monitoring, from the average POs marks, all POs were scored more than 80%, which indicates that the Mechanical Programs offered by the department are satisfied with the department standard.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".