School of Civil Engineering

College of Engineering
Universiti Teknologi MARA
40450 Shah Alam
Selangor Darul Ehsan
Contact No +603-5543 5275
Email [email protected]
Website https://engineering.uitm.edu.my

© Universiti Teknologi MARA 2023

The softcopy of the guideline is available online: https://engineering.uitm.edu.my

The hardcopy is available in:

School of Civil Engineering

College of Engineering
Universiti Teknologi MARA

ii
 ADVISORS
PROFESOR Dr. HAMIDAH MOHD SAMAN
PROFESOR Ir. Ts. Dr. Hj. SOLEHUDDIN BIN SHUIB
PROFESOR Dr. CHE KHAIRIL IZAM CHE IBRAHIM
ASSOCIATE PROFESOR Dr. NORASHIKIN AHMAD KAMAL
Ts. Dr. MOHD AMIZAN MOHAMED @ ARIFIN
Dr. NOOR AZREENA KAMALUDDIN
Ts. Dr. MOHD RAIZAMZAMANI MD ZAIN

EDITORS
PROFESOR Dr. HAMIDAH MOHD SAMAN
ASSOCIATE PROFESOR Ir. Dr. CHE MAZNAH MAT ISA

HEAD OF WRITER
ASSOCIATE PROFESOR Ir. Dr. CHE MAZNAH MAT ISA

MAIN WRITERS
Ir. Dr. OH CHAI LIAN
Ts. Dr. IRMA NOORAZURAH BINTI MOHAMAD
Ts. Dr. RUSDI RUSLI
Ts. Dr. MUSMULIADI KAMARUDING
Dr. NORFARAH NADIA ISMAIL
Ir. Tr. NOORFAIZAH HAMZAH
Ts. Dr. NURUL RABITAH DAUD

iii
 CONTENTS

FOREWORD I....................................................................................................................... 2
FOREWORD II...................................................................................................................... 3
PREFACE............................................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 5
1.1 Background............................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Programme Outcomes of Bachelor of Civil Engineering with Honours (EC220,
CEEC220 and CEEC222).................................................................................................. 6
1.3 Taxonomy Domains ................................................................................................ 9
1.4 Knowledge Profiles ............................................................................................... 10
1.5 Complex Engineering Problem Characteristics (WPs) .......................................... 12
1.6 Complex Engineering Activities (EAs) ................................................................... 15
1.7 Relationship between Knowledge Profiles and Programme Outcomes ................. 17
1.8 Constructive Alignment ......................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLEX PROBLEMS SOLVING SKILLS ............. 20
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 20
2.2 Complex Problem-Solving Skills Across Academic Years ..................................... 20
CHAPTER 3.0 ASSESSMENTS INCORPORATING COMPLEX ENGINEERING
PROBLEMS AND ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................... 22
3.1 Importance of Assessments .................................................................................. 22
3.2 Complexity Attributes and Difficulty Levels ............................................................ 22
3.3 Generic Performance Criteria Matrix ..................................................................... 23
3.4 Grading Assignments/Projects with Complex Problem .......................................... 28
CHAPTER 4.0 COMPLEX ENGINEERING PROBLEMS AND ACTIVITIES IN
CULMINATING COURSES ................................................................................................ 29
4.1 Mapping of Complex Problems in Culminating Courses ........................................ 29
4.2 Final Year Projects (FYPs).................................................................................... 31
4.3 Integrated Design Project (IDP) ............................................................................ 33
CHAPTER 5 QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ............................................................. 36
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 36
5.2 Support Services and Moderation Process ........................................................... 38
5.3 Submission for Review/Moderation ....................................................................... 40
5.3.1 Assessment Details ................................................................................... 40
5.3.2 Complex Problem Self-Assessment Form .................................................. 41
5.4 Guideline for Moderator ........................................................................................ 44
5.5 Continual Quality Improvement (CQI) ................................................................... 51

iv
 5.5.1 Programme Level ......................................................................................... 51
5.5.2 Course Level ................................................................................................ 51
5.6 Outcome Based Education (OBE) Training ........................................................... 51
5.7 Introduction to Graduate Attribute Professional Competencies (GAPC 2021) and
Roadmap to the new GAPC in 2024 ................................................................................ 53
APPENDICES..................................................................................................................... 58

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Mapping of PO attributes, WPs, EA and WKs. ......................................................... 7

Figure 1.2: The Holistic frameworks for the 12 POs. .................................................................10
Figure 1.3: Distinctions of nine components in Knowledge Profiles ..........................................10
Figure 1.4: Complex engineering attributes. ..............................................................................12
Figure 1.5: Attributes of complex engineering activities. ............................................................15
Figure 1.6: Summary of relationship between the graduate attributes or programme outcomes
(WAs/POs) and the knowledge profile (WKs). ...........................................................................18
Figure 1.7: Constructive alignment between teaching, learning and assessments (Adopted from
Siti Hawa, 2021)........................................................................................................................19
Figure 1.8: Specific Constructive Alignment at course level between teaching, learning and
assessments (Adopted from Che Maznah, AKRI2022) .............................................................19
Figure 5.1: Example of Examination Specification Table (EST) .................................................36
Figure 5.2: Internal Audit and Moderation Checklist for assessment incorporating (top) Complex
Engineering Problem, and (bottom) Complex Engineering Activities .........................................37
Figure 5.3: Moderation Process for Complex Problem Instruments ...........................................39
Figure 5.4: Complex Problem Self-Assessment Form ...............................................................41
Figure 5.5: Worksheet 1 Internal Audit Checklist components for (a) summary of checklist for WPs
and EAs, (b) checklist for relevant POs, (c) checklist for relevant WKs, (d) checklist for relevant
WPs, and (e) checklist for relevant EAs. ...................................................................................43
Figure 5.6: Worksheet 2 Self-assessment Form for WPs, EAs, and WKs .................................45
Figure 5.7: Guideline for the Moderator .....................................................................................46
Figure 5.8: Alignment of POs, taxonomy domain, and level of difficulty in (a) test, (b) project
description, and (c) rubrics ........................................................................................................47
Figure 5.9: Example of Description in Task and Rubrics ...........................................................48
Figure 5.10: Evaluation on CP Assessment Form .....................................................................49
Figure 5.11: Comments Section in the Vetting Process.............................................................50

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.1: Procedure in Preparing Complex Problem Instruments for Continuous Assessment 38
Table 5.2: Training workshops/conference/journal related to complex problems (2020-2022) ...52
Table 5.3: Mapping of Graduate Attributes (WA) with Knowledge Profile (WP), Complex Problems
(WP) and Complex Engineering Activities (EA) .........................................................................53
Table 2.1: Level of difficulty for each domain based on programme and year ...........................21
Table 3.1: Performance criteria for assessment rubrics incorporating complex engineering
problems ...................................................................................................................................24
Table 3.2: Performance criteria for assessment rubrics incorporating complex engineering
activities ....................................................................................................................................26
Table 4.1: Mapping of culminating courses to suitable attributes in complex engineering problems
……………………………………………………………………………………………………29
Table 4.2: Mapping of culminating courses to suitable attributes in complex engineering activities
.................................................................................................................................................30
Table 4.3: Mapping of culminating courses to suitable knowledge profiles ................................30
Table 4.4: Example of assessment criteria addressing WPs in FYPs ........................................31
Table 4.5: Assessment criteria addressing EAs in FYPs ...........................................................33
Table 4.6: Assessment criteria addressing WPs in IDP Capstone Project .................................34
Table 4.7: Assessment criteria addressing WPs in IDP Case Study Project ..............................35
Table 5.1: Procedure in Preparing Complex Problem Instruments for Continuous Assessment 38
Table 5.2: Training workshops/conference/journal related to complex problems (2020-2022) ...52
Table 5.3: Mapping of Graduate Attributes (WA) with Knowledge Profile (WP), Complex Problems
(WP) and Complex Engineering Activities (EA) .........................................................................53
Table 5.4: Mapping of Complex engineering Problems (WP) between EAC Standard 2020 and
GAPC2021................................................................................................................................56
Table 5.5: Mapping of Complex Engineering Activities (EA) between EAC Standard 2020 and
GAPC2021................................................................................................................................57

1
 FOREWORD I

Assalamualaikum wbt and Salam Sejahtera

Outcome Based Education (OBE) was introduced in engineering education in the year 2000. The
OBE is an approach that focuses on measurable, proven outcomes and is in line with a Continual
Quality Improvement (CQI) culture. In conjunction with the OBE implementation, integration of
complex problems in engineering curricula has become essential worldwide. In World Economy
Forum (WEF) 2018 and 2020, complex problem-solving skills were reported as the top ten
demanded skills for future jobs in 2025. International Engineering Alliance and Engineering
Accreditation Council also emphasis the need for an engineering programme to develop students'
complex engineering problems solving skills in documents Graduate Attributes and Professional
Competencies June 2013 and EAC Standard 2012, respectively. Thus, engineering programmes
shall be carefully designed to develop professional graduates equipped with skills to meet the
expectation and demands of the industry and the stakeholders. With the previous benchmarks,
the implementation of complex engineering problems (CEP) in the programmes of the School of
Civil Engineering (SCE), Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), started as early as 2012.
Complex engineering problem-solving skills can be developed in engineering education through
properly designed teaching delivery approaches, learning activities and assessments. Examples
include active and experiential learning using real case studies, collaborative teaching, learning
activities involving multiple stakeholders, open-ended laboratory, integrated design projects and
investigative projects etc. The students focus on knowledge, skill progression and personal and
interpersonal skills development. Thus students improved outcomes can be monitored
systematically yearly.
It is envisaged that the young engineers produced by the programme can solve complex
engineering problems, practice complex engineering activities independently, and collaborate in
team-based environments. With in-depth knowledge, they should be able to conduct professional
practices and deals with infrequently encountered and interdependent complex engineering
problems with multiple conflicting requirements beyond the codes of practice or involving different
stakeholders in original solutions.
I appreciate the efforts put in by SCE to establish this guideline to be referred by all lecturers. The
University and College will continually support this complex engineering problem initiative to
ensure that the strategic teaching and learning are parallel with the vision and mission of UiTM.

PROFESSOR DR. HJH. HAMIDAH MOHD SAMAN

Assistant Vice Chancellor College of Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor

2
 FOREWORD II

Assalamualaikum wbt and Salam Sejahtera,

School of Civil Engineering (SCE) has adopted Outcome-Based Education (OBE) in Teaching
Learning and Assessment (TLA) activities since its introduction in 2006 and was fully implemented
in 2008. The concepts of Complex Engineering Problems (CEP) and Complex Engineering
Activities (CEA) were introduced to the SCE in 2012. The implementation of the CEP and CEA in
the engineering programmes of the SCE is consistent with the mission and vision of the University
and School to develop professional engineering graduates with in depth of engineering knowledge
and globally competitive.
The undergraduate engineering curriculums in the school were designed with good coverage of
CEP and CEA. The CEP solution skills are developed starting from Year 1 and emphasized
gradually throughout the academic years through the teaching, learning and assessment activities
(TLA). The SCE incorporated the CEP and CEA in the curriculum design and was first
documented in final examination. Currently, the CEP and CEA solution skills also can be seen
when the students solve their project-based assessments. The academic staff in the SCE are
continually trained and guided to the implementation of the CEP and CEA through briefing,
seminar and workshops.
This guideline is one of the initiatives of the SCE to provide good guides and references on the
implementation of CEP and CEA for the civil engineering programme. This guideline is developed
in line with the School's effort towards excellence in TLA in order to fulfil requirements by the
recognising bodies. It is the intention of the SCE to see the guideline being referred and enhanced
from time to time in response to feedbacks.
The programmes offered by the SCE emphasise a broad exposure of knowledge with industrial
advancements and practices which prepare students to be competent, creative, innovative,
problem solving and ethical in their future engineering endeavours besides interpersonal and
intrapersonal skills acquired. These are reflected by the attainment and assessment made by the
CEP and CEA measurement.
It is hoped that the guideline can assist the academic staff in the SCE to implement CEP and CEA
approach in T&L and assessment successfully. This guideline is one of the efforts representing
the School's commitment for future graduates to be successful in the competitive environment of
today and tomorrow. The SCE will continue to strive to ensure that its academic strategic learning
is parallel with the vision and mission of UiTM.

PROFESSOR TS. DR. CHE KHAIRIL IZAM CHE IBRAHIM

Head of School of Civil Engineering,
College of Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor

3
 PREFACE

This version of Outcome-Based Education (OBE)- Guideline for Incorporating Complex

Engineering Problems (CEPs) and Complex Engineering Activities (CEAs) in Teaching, Learning,
and Assessment (TLA) for Civil Engineering Programme is intended to help and guide lecturers
and students to understand the concepts, processes, and techniques associated with complex
engineering problems and activities as required by the EAC Standard 2020 under the purview of
the Washington Accord, International Engineering Alliance (IEA).
The guideline provides the essential elements and emphasizes programme outcomes (POs),
taxonomy domains (cognitive, psychomotor, and affective), knowledge profiles (WK1-WK8),
complex engineering problem characteristics (WP1-WP7), complex engineering activities (EA1-
EA5), the constructive alignment in TLA with continual quality improvement (CQI) towards true
outcome attainment. It comes with diagrams, tables, and analysis output to elaborate on each
process related to teaching, learning and assessment (TLA). Some useful "best practices" are
also included as examples for further understanding and clarification of the CEPs and CEAs'
implementation in the OBE.
Chapter One introduces the programme outcomes (PO), taxonomy levels (cognitive,
psychomotor, and affective domains), knowledge profiles (WKs), complex engineering problems
(WPs), and complex engineering activities (EAs) characteristics and the importance of
constructive alignment under the OBE approach. Chapter Two elaborates on the development of
complex problem-solving skills in engineering curriculum design within the TLA context. Chapter
Three focuses on the assessment incorporating CEPs and CEAs, the relationship between
complexity and difficulty level for the engineering programme, the development of a performance
criteria matrix incorporating complex engineering problems and complex engineering activities,
and finally, the grading process. Chapter Four elaborates on the implementation of CEP and CEA
in three culminating courses: the final year project, integrated design project, and industrial
training. Finally, Chapter Five explains the quality management system, focusing on the support
system, documentation process, and CQI at the course and programme level. The new Graduate
Attributes and Professional Competencies (GAPC2021) are also introduced as a way forward
toward its implementation in 2024.
This version of Outcome Based Education (OBE) - Guideline for Incorporating Complex
Engineering Problems and Activities in Teaching, Learning and Assessment for Civil Engineering
Programme is intended to help and guide lecturers and students to understand the concept,
processes and techniques associated with complex engineering problems and activities
requirements by the EAC Standard 2020 under Washington Accord, International Engineering
Alliance (IEA).
Lastly, constructive comments and recommendations are very much welcome to enhance the
contents of the guideline.

ASSOCIATE. PROF. Ir. Dr. CHE MAZNAH MAT ISA

Head of Writer,
School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor

4
 CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering embarked on Open and Distance
Learning (ODL) in early 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, resulting in changes in
the teaching, learning, and assessment (TLA) activities. The directives from the University allow
for flexibility in the assessment where all engineering courses have been adjusted to 100 percent
continuous assessment, with a heavy percentage allocated for assignments/projects.
This situation calls for a greater need to create more interesting and effective
assignments/projects and to develop a fair and painless grading process. This call also serves
as a platform for tightening up the implementation of complex engineering problems and
developing effective course assessment rubrics.
It is hoped that this guideline can assist lecturers in creating assignments/projects that incorporate
complex engineering problems and activities and guide them in developing assessment
performance criteria matrices or rubrics that are fair and effective. Furthermore, it is essential to
ensure that conditions for passing courses required by the Engineering Accreditation Council
(EAC) Standard 2020 are met and ensure direct measurement and true outcome attainment as
required by the EAC Standard 2020 under the purview of the Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM).
The School of Civil Engineering (SCE) has introduced complex engineering problems into its
curriculum since 2012 to produce graduates with complex problem-solving abilities while meeting
the market's needs. Table 1.1 outlines the chronology of implementing the complex engineering
problems in the school.
Table 1.1: Chronological development of the implementation of complex problems in SCE.

Year Implementation of the Complex Problem

2012 EAC manual 2012 strongly recommended the need for complex engineering problems and
activities in the curriculum.

2012 SCE introduced complex engineering problems in the EC220 and EC221 curriculum design
and review.

2012 SCE incorporated and evaluated the complex engineering problems and activities in the
final assessment.

2012- The Complex Problem Committee regularly trains staff for complex engineering problems
current and administers surveys for improvement.

2013 SCE established a Complex Problem Committee and moderation process of complex
problems in assessments.

2015 The Complex Problem Committee developed the Complex Problem Self-Assessment
Form.

5
 2017 The Complex Problem Committee developed rubrics descriptors based on attributes of
complex engineering problems and activities.

2017 SCE allocated the levels of complex problems by academic year with the percentage of
marks for the assessments.

2018 SCE incorporated and evaluated the complex engineering problems and activities in the
final assessment for Final Year courses and continuous assessments for Year 1 to Year 3
courses.

2020 Complex Problem Committee introduced the online submission and vetting of complex
problems during COVID-19.

2021 Complex Problem Committee published an infographic of the vetting procedure and good
samples of assessments incorporating complex engineering problems.

2021 Complex Problem Committee improved online submission and vetting of complex
problems; and recorded the vetting process.

2021 Assessment rubrics explicitly assess students' complex problem-solving skills in

culminating courses FYPs and IDP.

2021 SCE established the two (2) procedures for implementing complex problems in
assessments.

2022 The SCE revised the distribution of marks for course assessments.

2022 The Complex Problem Committee published Guideline for OBE-Incorporating Complex
Engineering Problems and Activities in Course Assessments.

The assessment, which includes complex problem-solving and complex engineering activities, is
designed to ensure true attainment of the programme outcome for each course, as detailed in the
following section.

1.2 Programme Outcomes of Bachelor of Civil Engineering with Honours (EC220,

CEEC220 and CEEC222)

The Bachelor of Civil Engineering with Honours (EC220, CEEC220 and CEEC222) have the
Programme Outcomes (POs) specifying what students should know and do or achieve by the
time they graduate. Students acquire these abilities, knowledge, and behaviours during the
programme.
Attributes of the PO indicate the graduate's ability to gain competence to practice at the
appropriate level. As a result, graduates are ready to enter the workforce and complete a training
and experiential learning programme that will lead to professional competence or certification as
a professional engineer.
The SCE has published 12 formulated PO attributes and other outcomes that can contribute to
achieving its stated Program Educational Objectives (PEOs). It is an engineering approach to
problem-solving supported by engineering tools, techniques, and methods. The PO attributes also
indicate engineering practice's social, economic, cultural, health, safety, regulatory,
environmental, and sustainability impacts and engineers' ethical responsibilities. Finally, the PO
attainment must also reflect the individual characteristics required in the engineering workplace,

6
including the ability of individual and team work in solving problems, communication, engineering
management, and independent learning.
Figure 1.1 illustrates the 12 POs that engineering graduates must accomplish in accordance with
EAC Standard 2020 and the associated Knowledge Profiles (WKs). Programme outcomes PO1
to PO7 relate to complex engineering problems (WP), and one (1) PO necessitates complex
engineering activities (EA). Programme Outcomes PO1 to PO8 relate to knowledge profiles.

Note: PO- Programme Outcomes, WP- Complex Engineering Problem, WK – Knowledge Profile, EA – Complex
Engineering Activities

Figure 1.1: Mapping of PO attributes, WPs, EA and WKs.

7
Table 1.2 shows the 12 POs stated in the EAC Standard 2020, which are mapped to the required
Knowledge Profiles (WKs), Complex Engineering Problems (WPs) and Complex Engineering
Activities (EAs).
Table 1.2: Mapping of Programme Outcome (POs) with Knowledge Profile (WKs), Complex
Problems (WP) and Complex Engineering Activities (EA)

PO PO STATEMENT WK WP/EA
Engineering Knowledge - Apply knowledge of mathematics, natural
science, engineering fundamentals and an engineering specialization as WK1-
PO1 WP
specified in WK1 to WK4 respectively to the solution of complex engineering WK4
problems
Problem Analysis - Identify, formulate, conduct research literature, and
analyze complex engineering problems reaching substantiated conclusions WK1-
PO2 WP
using first principles of mathematics, natural sciences and engineering WK4
sciences (WK1 to WK4);
Design/Development of Solutions - Design solutions for complex
engineering problems and design systems, components or processes that
PO3 WK5 WP
meet specified needs with appropriate consideration for public health and
safety, cultural, societal, and environmental considerations (WK5)
Investigation – Conduct investigation of complex engineering problems
using research-based knowledge (WK8) and research methods including
PO4 WK8 WP
design of experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of
information to provide valid conclusions;
Modern Tool Usage - Create, select, and apply appropriate techniques,
resources, and modern engineering and IT tools, including prediction and
PO5 WK6 WP
modelling, to complex engineering problems, with an understanding of the
limitations (WK6)
The Engineer and Society - Apply reasoning informed by contextual
knowledge to assess societal, health, safety, legal and cultural issues and
PO6 WK7 WP
the consequent responsibilities relevant to professional engineering practice
and solutions to complex engineering problems (WK7);
Environment and Sustainability - Understand and evaluate the
sustainability and impact of professional engineering work in the solutions of
PO7 WK7 WP
complex engineering problems in societal and environmental contexts.
(WK7)
Ethics - Apply ethical principles and commit to professional ethics and
PO8 WK7 -
responsibilities and norms of engineering practice (WK7)
Individual and Teamwork - Function effectively as an individual, and as a
PO9 - -
member or leader in diverse teams and in multi-disciplinary setting
Communication - Communicate effectively on complex engineering
activities with the engineering community and with society at large, such as
PO10 being able to comprehend and write effective reports and design - EA
documentation, make effective presentations, and give and receive clear
instructions;
Project Management and Finance - Demonstrate knowledge and
understanding of engineering management principles and economic
PO11 - -
decision making and apply these to one’s own work, as a member and leader
in a team, to manage projects in multidisciplinary environments;
Lifelong Learning - Recognize the need for and have the preparation and
PO12 ability to engage in independent and life-long learning in the broadest context - -
of technological change.

8
The evaluation of POs is subjected to or aligned with three (3) taxonomy domains, which are
elaborated on in the upcoming parts.
PO1 and PO2 assess mathematics, natural sciences, engineering fundamental knowledge, and
problem analysis as specialist knowledge. The application knowledge aligns with PO3, PO4, PO5,
PO6, PO7, and PO8 which address engineering design, practice, and comprehension of issues
related to ethics, the environment, sustainability, and society. This relationship will be discussed
in greater detail in Section 1.7.
WKs are classified into three (3) types: conceptual, application, and source knowledge. WK
categories can be mapped to POs with complex engineering problem characterisation, as
explained in the following section.

1.3 Taxonomy Domains

Bloom's Taxonomy was developed in 1956 under the direction of educational psychologist Dr
Benjamin Bloom to promote higher forms of thinking in education, such as analysing and
evaluating concepts, processes, procedures, and principles, rather than simply memorising facts.
It is frequently used in educational, training, and learning process design.
Educational activities or learning can be classified into three domains (Bloom et al. 1956):
1. Cognitive: mental abilities (knowledge)
2. Affective: growth in the realm of feelings or emotions (attitude or self)
3. Psychomotor abilities: manual or physical prowess (skills)
These three categories, referred to as Knowledge [cognitive], Skills [psychomotor], and Attitudes
[affective], which comprise this taxonomy of learning behaviours, can be thought of as the learning
process objectives or learning outcomes. After a learning experience, the learner should have
gained a new skill, knowledge, and/or attitude. Figure 1.2 shows the holistic framework for the
twelve programme outcomes. The framework shows the important characteristics of the
engineering graduates, such as engineering problems solving skills, professional ethics and
responsibility, and individual attributes are well supported by the relevant programme outcomes.
Implementing complex engineering problems and activities also requires lecturers to refer to these
three (3) domains to be aligned with the knowledge profiles, which will be elaborated in the
following section.

9
 Figure 1.2: The Holistic frameworks for the 12 POs.

1.4 Knowledge Profiles

The knowledge profiles (WKs) are the broad characteristics of the various components of
knowledge embodied in an engineering programme. Therefore, it is essential to understand the
knowledge profile characteristics to supplement existing guidance on the design and evaluation
of curricula. Figure 1.3 shows the distinctions between the nine components in WKs (GAPC2021).
The knowledge profiles demonstrate the relationship between engineering specialist knowledge,
engineering fundamentals, natural sciences, applied mathematics in the specific curriculum or
programme.

Figure 1.3: Distinctions of nine components in Knowledge Profiles

10
Table 1.3 outlines the definition for each knowledge profile (WKs) based on the latest Graduate
Attributes and Professional Competencies (GAPC2021).

Table 1.3: Definition of nine (9) components of WKs in accordance with GAPC2021

A systematic, theory-based understanding of the natural sciences

WK1 Natural Sciences applicable to the discipline

Conceptually based mathematics, numerical analysis, statistics and

WK2 Mathematics formal aspects of computer and information science to support analysis
and modelling applicable to the discipline

Engineering A systematic, theory-based formulation of engineering fundamentals

WK3 required in the engineering discipline
fundamentals
Engineering specialist knowledge that provides theoretical frameworks
Specialist
WK4 and bodies of knowledge for the accepted practice areas in the engineering
knowledge discipline; much is at the forefront of the discipline.

Engineering
WK5 Knowledge that supports engineering design in a practice area
design
Engineering Knowledge of engineering practice (technology) in the practice areas in
WK6 the engineering discipline
practice
Comprehension of the role of engineering in society and identified issues
in engineering practice in the discipline: ethics and the professional
WK7 Comprehension responsibility of an engineer to public safety; the impacts of engineering
activity: economic, social, cultural, environmental and sustainability

Research Engagement with selected knowledge in the research literature of the

WK8 discipline
literature
Knowledge of professional ethics, responsibilities, and norms of
Ethics, inclusive
engineering practice. Awareness of the need for diversity by reason of
WK9 behavior and ethnicity, gender, age, physical ability etc. with mutual understanding and
conduct respect, and of inclusive attitudes

11
1.5 Complex Engineering Problem Characteristics (WPs)

It is crucial for engineering lecturers to have the skills to design complex engineering problem
questions, assignments, or projects to assess skill acquisition towards producing engineers
capable of solving complex engineering problems in their workplace. Thus, engineering lecturers
must be familiar with and understand the characteristics of complex engineering problems and
complex engineering activities' principles and characteristics defined by the Washington Accord
(GAPC2021) are as follows:

WP1: It is incapable of solving without extensive engineering knowledge.

WP2: Involve a variety of technical, engineering, and other issues that are either diverse
or conflicting.
WP3: Have no obvious solution and necessitate abstract thinking and ingenuity in
analysis to develop appropriate models.
WP4: Involve issues that are rarely encountered.
WP5: Outside of the scope of professional engineering standards and codes of practice.
WP6: Involve a variety of stakeholders with widely disparate needs.
WP7: Complex problems consisted of numerous component parts or sub-problems.

It is worth noting that a complex engineering problem, as defined by GAPC2021, must possess
the first attribute (WP1) and at least two attributes from WP2 to WP7. The seven (7) characteristics
are also outlined in Figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4: Complex engineering attributes.

12
The respective WPs and its characteristics are tabulated in Table 1.4. To facilitate the lecturer to
access each WP, descriptors for each rubric are designed. The descriptors are also outlined in
Table 1.4.

Table 1.4: The complex engineering problem characteristics are mapped to descriptors to assist
in rubric design.

COMPLEX ENGINEERING PROBLEM

WP Descriptors for Rubric Design
SOLVING
WP1 - Depth of Knowledge Required = in-depth Analyse the problem using specified knowledge
MUST engineering knowledge at the level of one profile (WKs)
HAVE or more of WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6 or WK8
(WK’s) fundamental, first principles Evaluate the problems under such circumstance
analytical approach towards providing effective solution

WP2 Range of Conflicting requirement = wide & Compare the conflicting technical, engineering
conflicting technical, engineering & other and other issues to solve the problems
issues
Assess the conflicting requirements and provide
a satisfactory proposal towards solving the
problems
WP3 Depth of analysis = no obvious solution, Develop the formulae/procedures to solve the
abstract thinking, originality problem using suitable models

Justify creativity towards the achievement of the

formulae/procedures

WP4 Familiarity of issues = infrequently Differentiate the infrequently encountered issues

encountered issues in problem solving

Select formula/procedures to resolve infrequently

encountered issues

WP5 Extent of applicable codes = outside Develop solution using standards and codes of
problems encompassed by codes for practice for professional engineering
professional engineering
Justify professional engineering experiences to
resolve the problems

WP6 Extent of stakeholder involvement and Differentiate the diverse groups of stakeholders
conflicting requirements = diverse groups of with widely varying needs
stakeholders with widely varying needs
Select stakeholder interests and requirements
that give impact on the problem

WP7 Interdependence = high level problems with Analyse high level problems including many
many parts & sub-problems component parts or sub-problems &

Propose problem broken down into smaller

components or sub-problems

13
The following subsections elaborate the characteristics for each WP along with the examples.
The illustrative examples for WPs can be found in Appendix 1.
WP1
The complex engineering problem in WP1 should address the depth of knowledge where the in-
depth engineering knowledge is needed at the level of one or more of WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6 or
WK8 fundamentals. The WP1 complex problems also apply the first principles analytical
approach. Meanwhile, the rubric design could be described as analysing the problem using
specified knowledge profiles (WKs).
WP2
The knowledge profile WP2 mentions the range of conflicting requirements ranging from wide or
shallow points of view on conflicting technical, engineering and other related issues. This WP2
should be described in the rubric as comparing the conflicting technical, engineering, and other
issues to solve complex problems. In addition, it could be described as assessing the conflicting
requirements and providing a satisfactory proposal for solving the problems.
WP3
The WP3 examines the depth of analysis where the complex problems should have no obvious
solution, consisting of abstract thinking and originality. The complex problems should assess the
capability of the students to develop the formulae or procedures to solve the problem by using
suitable models. This WP3 also looks at the justification of creativity towards achieving the
proposed formulae or procedures.
WP4
The knowledge profile WP4 is focusing on the familiarity of issues where it touches on the
infrequently encountered issues in the selected topics. The rubric should mention the ability of
students to differentiate the infrequently encountered issues in their problem solving. This WP4
has also examined the capability of students to select the suitable formula or procedures to
resolve infrequently encountered issues in problem solving.
WP5
The knowledge profile WP5 observes the extent of applicable codes where the outside problems
are encompassed by codes for professional engineering purposes. The WP5 evaluates the
capability of students to develop solutions using standards and codes of practice for professional
engineering. The rubrics needs to mention that the developed solutions should also justify
professional engineering experiences to resolve the problems.
WP6
The WP6 is addressing the extent of stakeholder involvement and conflicting requirements among
the diverse groups of stakeholders with widely varying needs in getting the problem solutions.
Hence, the rubrics should mention the ability to differentiate the diverse groups of stakeholders
with widely varying needs and select the suitable stakeholder interests and requirements that give
impact on the complex problems.
WP7
The knowledge profile WP7 identifies the interdependence in terms of high-level problems with
many parts and sub-problems. This WP7 should analyse high-level problems, including many
components or parts or sub-problems in problem-solving and propose problems broken down into
smaller components or sub-problems.

14
As explained, the complex engineering problems characteristics are mapped with the attributes
of PO1,PO2,PO3,PO4, PO6, and PO7 (Refer to attainment Table 1.2). However, for PO10
(communication attributes) the learners have to be assessed by their capability to perform
complex engineering activities (EAs) which will be explained in the following sub- sections.

1.6 Complex Engineering Activities (EAs)

Complex Engineering Activities (EAs) should be incorporated appropriately into the teaching,
learning and assessments, specifically in student ability in communication (PO10). Students are
trained to communicate effectively on the EAs related to or even collaborate with the engineering
community and society. Effective communication on EAs can be attained when students can
comprehend, receive instructions, write and give a presentation in a written form, verbal form or
both. Common assessment methods for written form are reports, prototypes and drawings,
whereas oral form is through presentation and viva.
Similar to complex problems (WPs), an assessment incorporating complex engineering activities
shall cover some (at least two) or all EA attributes, namely EA1 - Range of resources, EA2 - Level
of interactions, EA3 - Innovation, EA4 - Consequences to Society and the Environment, and EA5
– Familiarity as illustrated in Figure 1.5.

Figure 1.5: Attributes of complex engineering activities.

15
The descriptors of rubrics design of each EA will assist the lecturers in formulating tasks to test
learner ability to demonstrate effective communication skills when writing or presenting complex
engineering issues with some or all of EA and components are shown in Table 1.5.

Table 1.5: Descriptors of EAs characteristics for Rubrics Design

EA COMPLEX ENGINEERING Descriptors for Rubrics Design

ACTIVITIES (Some or all)
EA1 Range of resources = use of Elaborate functions and association with different resources
diverse resources (people, money, such as people, money, equipment, materials, information
information, technologies) and technologies
Justify the involvement of these resources in fulfilling the
requirements of a successful design project.
EA2 Level of interactions = interactions Adapt significant problems arising from interactions between
between wide & conflicting wide-ranging or conflicting technical, engineering or other
technical, engineering & other issues
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 of Advocate creative use of engineering principles and
engineering principles and research-based knowledge in novel ways
research-based knowledge Justify creativity towards the achievement of the novelty (eg.
patent/copyright/etc)
EA4 Consequences to society and Organise significant consequences in a range of contexts,
environment = significant characterized by difficulty of prediction and mitigation
consequences, characterized by
Exemplify significant consequences in a range of contexts,
difficulty of prediction & mitigation characterized by difficulty of prediction and mitigation

EA5 Familiarity = extend beyond Organise resolution beyond previous experiences routinely
previous experiences using encountered
principle-based approaches Exemplify experiences to resolve the engineering activities

The following sub-sections elaborate each attribute of complex engineering activities that are
required to be embedded when assessing learners' communication skills. The illustrative
examples of EAs can be found in Appendix 1.
EA1
Engineering activity characteristic for EA1 commonly involves diverse resources such as people,
money, equipment, materials, information, and technologies. The lecturers can design EAs with
the question, “What resources were available to help you carry out these EAs?”. Several EAs
examples dealing with the EA1 range of resources are: (i) development of construction project
plans in meeting the project timelines and financial commitments, (ii) work progress report
containing work plans, budgets, project performance objectives, projections on work completion
etc. (iii) laboratory/experimental/investigation works.
EA2
Engineering activity characteristics for EA2 may require the resolution of significant problems
arising from multiple levels of interactions, such as between wide-ranging or conflicting technical,

16
engineering, or other issues. These levels of interactions will always be needed to solve problems
such as “What are the engineering issues that could impact engineering matters related to the
project?” and “What unforeseen engineering issues arose during the execution of the project?”.
Thus, prior to commencing the work, engineers are required to ensure all the engineering issues
are ensured or resolved or scheduled to be resolved to meet project plan targets, for example,
identify the potential risks with the respective proposed solution. The assessment addressing EA2
should test the learner's ability to identify potential risks and a mitigation plan to encounter the
risks.
EA3
The engineering activity on EA3 emphasizes innovation in creativity to use engineering principles
and research-based knowledge while solving the tasks. For example, the student is required to
study, choose, and utilize the new techniques, materials, or processes in the project, feasibility
study (technical and economic) based on literature review, or other relevant
references/information. In addition, the student needs to determine how the proposed approach
improves the efficiency, effectiveness, or quality of work using tools and methods such as return
on investment (ROI) and quality management tools for economic and sustainability. The student
is required to justify the creative solutions and use out-of-the-box thought processes
undertaken/happened to promote innovation. Therefore, the rubric evaluation descriptions should
mention that they advocate the creative use of engineering principles and research-based
knowledge in novel ways while carrying out the activities.
EA4
The engineering activity, EA4, observes the consequences to society and the environment.
Therefore, EA4 should be described as the ability of students to organize significant
consequences in a range of contexts that is characterized by the difficulty of prediction and
mitigation plans. The student needs to evaluate the impacts of the engineering solutions on
society and the environment and the effect on the stakeholders/parties involved. Hence, the
rubrics should look at points that exemplify the significant consequences in a range of contexts,
characterized by the difficulty of prediction and mitigation plans, and the impacts of the solutions
to the society/public and the environment.
EA5
Engineering activity EA5 involves students’ familiarity with engineering problems, either from their
new experience or a familiar experience. A new or unique experience may be when the problem
has not been previously encountered or is rarely encountered. Conversely, students have typical
or ordinary experiences when they have clearly defined approaches or practices but meet some
(or many) unique issues during the solution. The extent of this previous experience in
demonstrating well-understood techniques or practices in the EA5 shall be well-informed.

1.7 Relationship between Knowledge Profiles and Programme Outcomes

The relationship between the knowledge profile (WK) and the graduate attributes or programme
outcomes (WA/PO) integrates the engineering problem-solving elements and engineering
activities that graduates must demonstrate on the task given. By emphasising all graduate
characteristics, the graduate is expected to generate the composition of responsibilities and the
ability to perform analysis and synthesis of solutions. The relationship between the graduate
attributes or programme outcomes (WA/PO) and the knowledge profile (WK) can be summarised
as in Figure 1.6.

17
 Figure 1.6: Summary of relationship between the graduate attributes or programme outcomes
(WAs/POs) and the knowledge profile (WKs).

1.8 Constructive Alignment

In order to ensure the WA/PO attributes are attained, the teaching and learning (T&L) and
assessment activities must be designed where true attainments are achievable. This is called
‘constructive alignment’ and the concept is illustrated in Figure 1.7.
In most cases, the constructive alignment is not reflected in T&L and assessment (T&L&A),
therefore, it is imperative that the lecturers check the T&L&A to be well aligned with WA/PO when
incorporating complex problems or activities.
OBE requires T&L activities to be constructively aligned to the intended learning outcomes. In all
programmes, the intended outcomes must be clearly stated in order for students and lecturers to
be impactful after the learning process.
For the lecturer to deliver the T&L activities, a suitable approach for the instruction must be used,
as well as ensuring that the activities carried out match the outcomes.
Assessment refers to the various evaluations conducted on students at the programme or course
level, either formative/summative or direct/indirect. When the appropriate assessments for the
targeted PO can be completed, the constructive alignment is well established. Figure 1.8 shows
the adaptation of constructive alignment at course level.

18
 Note: SCL – Student-Centered Learning, TCL - Teacher-Centered Learning, PBL – Problem-based Learning,
POPBL - Problem Oriented Project-based Learning, CBL- Case-based Learning
Figure 1.7: Constructive alignment between teaching, learning and assessments (Adopted from
Siti Hawa, 2021).

Figure 1.8: Specific Constructive Alignment at course level between teaching, learning and
assessments (Adopted from Che Maznah, AKRI2022)

19
 CHAPTER 2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLEX
PROBLEMS SOLVING SKILLS

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the development of complex problem skills in assessing students for Year
1 to Year 4. Table of complexity for all years and mapping of all courses to respective WK, WP
and EA are also tabulated.

2.2 Complex Problem-Solving Skills Across Academic Years

Assessments of complex problem-solving skills in assignments or project for courses in Year 1 to

Year 3, and in the Final Examination for courses in Year 4 was implemented by the Faculty
Academic Committee (Jawatankuasa Akademik Fakulti, JAF) starting 01.08.2018. However, this
implementation was not applicable during the Covid-19 pandemic, however, was continued
starting Semester October 2022-February 2023 when the Minister of Higher Education and the
University announced the full return of the students to campus. During the Covid-19 pandemic
(2020-2022), the teaching and learning process has been improvised and amended to
accommodate the pandemic situations, following the requirements set by the Instructional
Guidance (Teaching & Learning) for Lecturers Amid Covid-19 Concerns, published by SCE. At
this time, the complex engineering problem-solving skills can be assessed either in the tests or
assignments for courses in Year 4.
The assessment in a course should incorporate complex problems according to the requirements
of percentage distribution, domain, and taxonomy level of difficulty for each year of the
programme. The requirements are documented in the Vetting form for assessments in SCE.
Table 2.1 shows percentage distributions of assessments incorporating complex engineering
problems based on academic years. Complex engineering problem are designed for the
assessments with the taxonomy level of difficulty of C5 and C6 in the Cognitive domains, A5 in
Affective domain and P5 to P7 in the Psychomotor domain.

20
Table 2.1: Level of difficulty for each domain based on programme and year

COGNITIVE DOMAIN & LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY (%)

COMPLEX PROBLEM
C1 C2 C3 C4
Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis
C5 C6
PROGRAMME

Synthesis Evaluation
AFFECTIVE DOMAIN & LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY (%)
YEAR

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
Receiving Responding Valuing Organizing Characterization

PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAIN & LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY (%)

P5
P3
P1 P2 P4 Complex P6 P7
Guided
Perception Set Mechanism Overt Adaption Origination
Response
Response
1 25-45 40-60 10-15
2 20-40 40-60 15-30
Bachelor
3 15-30 45-65 20-40
4 5-15 45-65 25-45

21
 CHAPTER 3.0 ASSESSMENTS INCORPORATING
COMPLEX ENGINEERING PROBLEMS AND
ACTIVITIES

3.1 Importance of Assessments

Assessment is essential to monitor student learning and determine the students' attainment of
learning outcomes. Creating high-quality assessments and assessment tools helps the lecturers
understand their students' achievement and, subsequently, guide improvement in the curriculum,
instructional practices, and student services. When linked with accountability, assessments can
drive changes at different levels of the system. Assessments provide information about student
performance to internal and external stakeholders. The assessment-accountability policy
becomes a strategy to acknowledge the achievement of students, lecturers, and institutions,
including allocating resources or rewards systems. In addition, quality assurance of the
assessments and continual improvements made to the educational system based on students'
performance is undoubtedly crucial to obtaining accreditation from the accrediting bodies.
This chapter will explain how the assessment is formulated to be aligned with POs, complexity,
and difficulty levels that can fulfil the requirements of International Engineering Alliance (IEA) and
Graduate Attribute Professional Competencies (GAPC 2021) for complex engineering problems
and complex engineering activities.

3.2 Complexity Attributes and Difficulty Levels

Assignments/projects involving complex engineering problems and activities should focus on the
higher difficulties level that may require analysis and synthesis of competing perspectives,
application of theory to real-world problems, or creative extensions of the course material. A clear
set of objectives for the assignment/project must be aligned to the designed programme outcomes
(POs) and course learning outcome/s (COs).
Seven (7) POs address complex engineering problems are PO1, PO2, PO3, PO4, PO5, PO6,
and PO7. There are seven (7) complex problem attributes that can be incorporated into the
assignment: WP1 (Depth of Knowledge), WP2 (Conflicting requirements), WP3 (Depth of
analysis), WP4 (Familiarity of issues), WP5 (Extent of applicable codes), WP6 (Extent of
stakeholders) and WP7 (Interdependence). In order to ensure that the assignment addresses a
complex problem, the chosen problem for the assignment must have some or all of the complex
problem attributes (WP1 is a must and at least any other two WPs from WP2 to WP7).
Note that for courses aligned to PO10, the assignment/project must incorporate some or all
complex engineering activity attributes (with at least 2 EAs). There are five (5) complex
engineering activity attributes: EA1 (Range of resources), EA2 (Level of interactions), EA3
(Innovation), EA4 (Consequences to society and the environment), and EA5 (Familiarity).
From a reverse perspective, complex problem attributes can also be used to structure the
problem. For example, selecting WP4 (familiarity of issues) would require the problem to be set
within a scenario that has not been encountered by the students before. However, all issues must

22
fulfill WP1 (depth of knowledge), whereby students must have an in-depth knowledge of the
theory and concepts learned from the course to complete the assignment/project.
Additionally, in order to access that learners possess in-depth engineering knowledge, they
should indicate that one (1) or more knowledge profiles WKs are fulfilled. The learners are
considered excellent if, for any assessment tools utilized, they can exhibit strong fundamental and
analysis approach in engineering design, usage of modern tools, and extensive literature research
in mastering the principles of solving the problems.

3.3 Generic Performance Criteria Matrix

Lecturers can refer to the generic performance criteria for developing assessment rubrics
incorporating complex engineering problems and complex engineering activities as shown in
Table 3.1 and Table 3.2, respectively. Various examples of assignments/projects together with
the performance criteria matrix are presented in the Appendix 2.

23
Table 3.1: Performance criteria for assessment rubrics incorporating complex engineering problems

Must exhibit WP1 and with some or all other WPs (WP2-WP7) Scale
Complex Problem Descriptors for Rubric
WPs 1 2 3 4 5
Attributes Design

Apply specified Use 2 WKs Use 3 WKs Use 4 WKs Use more than
Use 2 WKs but
Depth of Knowledge Analyse the problem with with with 4 WKs with
do not
Required = in-depth using specified acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable
elaborate
engineering knowledge at knowledge profile (WKs) elaboration elaboration elaboration elaboration
WP1 -
the level of one or more of Evaluate more
MUST Evaluate 1 Evaluate 2 Evaluate 3 Evaluate 4
WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6 or Evaluate the problems than 4
HAVE circumstance circumstances circumstances circumstances
WK8 (WK’s) fundamental, under such circumstance circumstances
first principles analytical with with with with
towards providing with
approach acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable
effective solution acceptable
justification justification justification justification
justification
Compare more
Compare the conflicting Compare 2 Compare 4
Compare 3 than 4 issues
technical, engineering, Provide only 1 issues with issues with
issues with with
and other issues to solve issue acceptable acceptable
Range of Conflicting accordance acceptable
the problems discussion discussion
requirement = wide & discussion
WP2
conflicting technical, Assess the conflicting
engineer & other issues requirements and Assess with
Assess but no Assess with 1 Assess with 2 Assess with 3
provide a satisfactory more than 3
proposal proposal proposals proposals
proposal towards solving proposals
the problems
Conceptualise Conceptualise
Develop 2 Develop 3
Develop the Conceptualise 1 1
Depth of analysis = no formula/proced formula/proced
formulae/procedures to 1 formula/proced formula/proced
obvious solution, abstract WP3 ures used and ures used and
solve the problem using formula/proced ures used but ures used and
thinking, originality elaborate the elaborate the
suitable models ures used do not elaborate the
model model
elaborate model
Justify 1 Justify the 1 Justify the 1 Justify the 2 Justify the 3
creative creative creative creative creative
Depth of analysis = no Justify creativity towards
development development development development development
obvious solution, abstract the achievement of the WP3
used but do used and used and used and
thinking, originality formulae/procedures
not elaborate elaborate the elaborate the elaborate the
the model model model model

24
Table 3.1: Performance criteria for assessment rubrics incorporating complex engineering problems (con’t)
Must exhibit WP1 and with some or all other WPs (WP2-WP7) Scale
Complex Problem
Descriptors WPs 1 2 3 4 5
Attributes
Compare the Compare and Compare and Compare and Compare and
Differentiate the
basis differentiate 2 differentiate 2 differentiate 3 differentiate >
infrequently encountered
issues but do issues and issues and 3 issues and
Familiarity of issues = issues in problem solving
not propose propose propose propose
infrequently encountered WP4
issues Select formula/ Select 1 Select 2 Select at least Select 3 Select > 3
procedures to resolve approach to approaches to 2 approaches approaches to approaches to
infrequently encountered resolve resolve to resolve and resolve and resolve and
issues justify justify justify
Develop solution using Use at least 1 Use at least 2 Use at least 2 Use at least 3 Use more than
standards and codes of practicing practicing 3 practicing
Extent of applicable codes practice for professional guide guide guide
= outside problems engineering WP5
encompassed by codes for
professional engineering Justify professional Justify using at Justify using at Justify using at Justify using at Justify using
engineering experiences least 1 least 2 least 2 least 3 more than 3
to resolve the problems experience experiences experiences experiences experiences

Compare and Compare and Compare and

Differentiate the diverse
Compare and differentiate 2 differentiate 3 differentiate >
groups of stakeholders Compare the
differentiate 2 groups and groups and 3 groups and
Extent of stakeholder with widely varying basis
groups propose 1 propose 2 propose 3
involvement and conflicting needs
solution solutions solutions
requirements = diverse WP6
groups of stakeholders Select 2 Select more
Select stakeholder Select 1 Select 2 Select 3
with widely varying needs stakeholders than 3
interests and stakeholder stakeholders stakeholders
and compare stakeholders
requirements that give and discuss and justify and justify
impact. and justify
impact on the problem impact impacts impacts
Differentiate impacts
Analyse high level Use 2-sub Use 2 sub- Use more than
Use 2 sub- Use 3 sub-
problems including many problems but problems with 3 sub-
problems and problems and
component parts or sub- do not acceptable problems and
Interdependence = high differentiate differentiate
problems & elaborate elaboration differentiate
level problems with many WP7
parts & sub-problems Propose problem broken Propose 2 Propose 3 Propose >3
down into smaller Propose 1 Propose 1 components with components with components with
components or sub- component only component only acceptable acceptable acceptable
problems justification justification justification

25
Table 3.2: Performance criteria for assessment rubrics incorporating complex engineering activities

Some or all other EAs (EA1-EA5) Scale

COMPLEX
ENGINEERING Descriptors for Rubrics Design EAs 1 2 3 4 5
ACTIVITIES

Elaborate functions and association Associate with

Associate with Associate with Associate with Associate with
with different resources such as more than 3
Range of 1 1 resource with 2 resources 3 resources
people, money, equipment, resources with
resources = use resources but little with significant with significant
materials, information and very significant
of diverse no elaboration elaboration elaboration elaboration
technologies elaboration
resources EA1
(people, money, Justify on more
Justify on 1 Justify on 2 Justify on 3
information, Justify the involvement of these than 3
Justify on 1 resource with resources with resources with
technologies) resources in fulfilling the resources with
resource only acceptable acceptable very significant
requirements of a successful design very significant
justification justification justification
project. justification
Adapt significant problems arising Associate with
Level of Associate with Associate with Associate with
from interactions between wide- Adapt 1 level more than 3
interactions = 1 level of 2 levels of 3 levels of
ranging or conflicting technical, of interaction levels of
interactions interaction interaction interaction
engineering or other issues interaction
between wide &
Justify the solutions achieved EA2 Discuss the Justify the Justify the Justify the Justify the
conflicting
technical, arising from the level of interactions solutions solutions solutions solutioins solutions
engineering & involving wide-ranging or conflicting based on the 1 based on 1 based on 2 based on 3 based on more
other issues technical, engineering or other level of level of levels of levels of than 3 levels of
issues. interaction interaction interaction interaction interaction
Innovation = Advocate creative use of Conceptualise Conceptualise Advocate 1 Advocate 2 Advocate 3
creative use of engineering principles and research- only 1 creative 1 creative creative creative creative
engineering based knowledge in novel ways principle used principle used principle used principles used principles used
principles and but do not and elaborate and elaborate and elaborate
research-based elaborate the the novelty the novelty the novelty
knowledge novelty
Justify creativity towards the EA3 Justify the 1 Justify the 1 Justify the 1 Justify the 2 Justify the 3
achievement of the novelty (eg. creative creative creative creative creative
patent/copyright/etc) principle used principle used principle used principles used principles used
but do not and elaborate and elaborate and elaborate
elaborate research- research- research-
research- based based based
based knowledge knowledge knowledge
knowledge

26
Table 3.2: Performance criteria for assessment rubrics incorporating complex engineering activities (con’t)
Some or all other EAs (EA1-EA5) Scale

COMPLEX
Descriptors for Rubrics
ENGINEERING EAs 1 2 3 4 5
Design
ACTIVITIES

Consequences to Organise significant EA4 Organise and Organise and Organise and Organise and Organise and
society and consequences in a range of characterise 1 characterise characterise 2 characterise 3 characterise
environment = contexts, characterized by context only 1 difficult difficult difficult more than 3
significant difficulty of prediction and context contexts contexts difficult
consequences, mitigation contexts
characterized by
difficulty of Exemplify significant Justify the Justify (1) Justify (2) Justify (3) Justify the (>3)
prediction & consequences in a range of consequences difficulty and difficulties and difficulties and difficulties and
mitigation contexts, characterized by its their their their
difficulty of prediction and consequences consequences consequences consequences
mitigation

Familiarity = extend Organise resolution beyond EA5 Organise by Organise by Organise by Organise by Organise by
beyond previous previous experiences routinely applying 1 applying 1 applying 2 applying 3 applying more
experiences using encountered principle- principles- principles- principles- than 3
principle-based based based based based principles-
approaches approach approach approach approach based
beyond beyond beyond approach
previous previous previous beyond
experience experience experience previous
experience

Exemplify experiences to Justify the Justify the Justify the Justify the Justify the
resolve the engineering approach approach approaches approaches approaches
activities during during (2) during (3) during (>3) during
resolution resolution resolution resolution resolution
beyond beyond beyond beyond
previous previous previous previous
experience experience experience experience

27
3.4 Grading Assignments/Projects with Complex Problem

Assignments/projects can present special grading challenges. In order to ensure a fair and
painless grading process, students should be given explicit guidelines on how an assignment/
project will be evaluated.
As for assignments/projects with complex problem, evaluation must be carried out for two (2)
requirements as follows:
(1) an evaluation of the student’s performance in achieving the assignment’s/project’s
objectives, and
(2) an evaluation of the student’s complex problem-solving ability with respect to each of the
complex problem attribute in the assignment/project.
This can be achieved through a well-prepared assessment rubric for both requirements. However,
with a bit more thought and effort, a single rubric can be developed to evaluate both requirements
together (which is strongly recommended).
While group assignments/ projects can achieve learning outcomes (required for PO10; improving
teamwork and collaborating skills) not addressed by individual assignments/ projects, they are
notoriously difficult to grade fairly for a number of reasons but not limited to the following:
(1) Work is often distributed unevenly among group members. For this reason, lecturers may
require members of a group to individually suggest a grade for “effort” for each of the group
members, including themselves (peer assessment).

(2) In addition, because collaboration limits the ability of any one student to “control” the final
product, group work may not perfectly reflect the true abilities or effort of either a struggling
student or an outstanding student. For this reason, consider implementing both individual
and group accountability.

For example, each student might be individually responsible for a certain topic or section
and receive a holistic grade for the group’s performance. In the case of group
assignments/projects with complex problem or complex engineering activities, it is strongly
suggested that the complex problem-solving and complex engineering activities portion of
the assignment/project be assigned to individual work.
Therefore, grading group assignments/projects with complex problem or complex engineering
activities will require assessment rubrics to have both individual and group assessment criteria in
them, with the complex problem-solving or the complex engineering activities assessment being
assigned to the individual assessment criteria.
It is worth noting that some assignments/projects do not lend themselves well to group work or
collaboration. Assignments/projects that work well with group work or collaboration often result in
“products,” such as films, computer programs, physical inventions, or “proposals,” based on a
problem-solving assignment/project or case study.

28
 CHAPTER 4.0 COMPLEX ENGINEERING PROBLEMS
AND ACTIVITIES IN CULMINATING COURSES

4.1 Mapping of Complex Problems in Culminating Courses

Culminating courses such as Final Year Projects (FYP 1 and FYP2), Integrated Design Project
(IDP) and Industrial Training (IT) should incorporate many attributes of complex engineering
problems and activities. Table 4.1 to Table 4.3 show the mapping of suitable attributes in complex
engineering problems, complex engineering activities and knowledge profiles, respectively in the
culminating courses in SCE. The next sections present the assessment design incorporating
complex engineering problems and activities in FYPs and IDP.

Table 4.1: Mapping of culminating courses to suitable attributes in complex engineering problems

REPORT/ LOG-BOOK/ CASE STUDY/ PROJECT

PROGRAMME OUTCOMES (WA/PO)

LEVEL OF BLOOM TAXANOMY

COMPLEX PROBLEM SOLVING (CP)

CULMINATING COURSES

WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 WP7

DEPTH OF

CONFLICTING REQUIREMENT
EXTEND OF STAKEHOLDERS
OF ANALYSIS

APPLICABLE CODES

INTERDEPENDENCE
KNOWLEDGE

FAMILIARITY OF
REQUIREMENT
CONFLICTING

INVOLVEMENT &
EXTENSIVE
REQUIRED
RANGE OF
WK4 - ENGINEERING

WK5 - ENGINEERING

WK6 - ENGINEERING
WK3 -ENGINEERING

ISSUES
WK8 - LITERATURE
FUNDAMENTAL

SPECIALIST

PRACTICE

SEARCH
DESIGN

DEPTH

INTEGRATED PO1, PO3,

DESIGN PO6, PO7, C5-C6 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
PROJECT PO9, PO11

PO2, PO4,
FINAL YEAR
PO5, PO8, C5-C6 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
PROJECT 1
PO10, PO12

PO2, PO4,
FINAL YEAR
PO5, PO8, C5-C6 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
PROJECT 2
PO10, PO12

PO1, PO2,
INDUSTRIAL
PO3, PO6, C5-C6 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
TRAINING
PO8, PO10

Note: Only the bolded POs are mapped with WPs.

29
Table 4.2: Mapping of culminating courses to suitable attributes in complex engineering activities

REPORT/ PRESENTATION

PROGRAMME OUTCOMES
CULMINATING COURSES
COMPLEX ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES (EA)

LEVEL OF BLOOM
WA10

TAXANOMY
EA1 EA2 EA3 EA4 EA5

(WA/PO)

INTERACTIONS

ENVIRONMENT
CONSEQUENC
RESOURCES

INNOVATION

FAMILIARITY
SOCIETY &

OF ISSUES
RANGE OF

LEVEL OF

ES TO
FINAL YEAR PO2, PO4, PO5,
C5-C6 √ √ √ √
PROJECT 1 PO8, PO10, PO12
FINAL YEAR PO2, PO4, PO5,
C5-C6 √ √ √ √
PROJECT 2 PO8, PO10, PO12
INDUSTRIAL PO1, PO2, PO3,
C5-C6 √ √ √ √
TRAINING PO6, PO8, PO10

Note: Only the bolded PO10 is mapped with EAs.

Table 4.3: Mapping of culminating courses to suitable knowledge profiles

Knowledge profiles
CULMINATING COURSES &
PROGRAMME OUTCOMES

WK1 WK2 WK3 WK4 WK5 WK6 WK7 WK8 WK9

Comprehension
Fundamental
Mathematics

Engineering

Engineering

Engineering

Engineering
(WA/PO)

Behavioral
Ethics and
Research
Specialist

Literature
Sciences

Conduct
Practice
Natural

Design

PO6, PO4, PO8,

PO1-PO2 PO3 PO5
PO7 PO12 PO9
INTEGRATED DESIGN
PROJECT (PO1, PO3, PO6, √ √ √ √ √ √ √
PO7, PO9, PO11)
FINAL YEAR PROJECT 1
(PO2, PO4, PO5, PO8, √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
PO10, PO12)
FINAL YEAR PROJECT 2
(PO2, PO4, PO5, PO8, √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
PO10, PO12)
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
(PO1, PO2, PO3, PO6, √ √ √ √ √ √ √
PO8, PO10)

30
4.2 Final Year Projects (FYPs)

The Final Year Projects (FYP 1 and FYP 2) aims to develop students’ ability in carrying out
investigation, conducting research, and designing and running experiments. The course involves
students in problem formulation, literature review, analysis of data, interpretation of results, and
producing a final report on a chosen topic. Both complex engineering problems and complex
engineering activities are assessed in FYPs. The nature of the projects may be experimental,
survey, co-relational, simulation or descriptive research. The assessments of FYPs include
assessing student commitment, report and presentation which involve supervisors, internal and
external panels as examiners.
In FYPs, students’ communication skill (PO10) is assessed in their oral presentation to internal
and external panels (panels from industry, government and other academic institutions). Students
present their participation in the complex engineering activities through sharing on how they use
diverse resources (e.g. people, money, materials, information, technologies etc.) (EA1),
recommend creative idea in application of engineering principles or new research direction (EA3),
discuss and justify the impacts of the project findings to society and environment (EA4), explain
solutions dealing with unfamiliar problems which are beyond previous experiences (EA5).
Report Writing is used to measure (CO1-PO2) (CO2-PO4) (CO3-PO5) (CO6-PO12) addressing
complex engineering problems WP1 (depth knowledge with demonstration of WK3, WK4, WK6
and WK8) and WP3 (in-depth analysis with no obvious solution), WP4 (infrequently encountered
issues) and WP7 (interdependence).
The FYP directly provides the students with training in technical, social and communication skills.
It also encourages utilizing modern technology and ICT for presenting the report. Table 4.4 and
Table 4.5 show the summarized assessment criteria addressing WPs and EAs in FYPs,
respectively. The complete assessment rubrics for FYP1 and FYP2 can be found in Appendix 3.

Table 4.4: Example of assessment criteria addressing WPs in FYPs

Element (CO-
WPs Assessment Criteria
PO)/ Domain
WP1: Depth of Knowledge
Required = in-depth engineering
Ability to differentiate the infrequently
knowledge at the level of one or
encountered issues in order to analyze the
Problem more of WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6 or
problem by demonstrating the specified
Statement WK8 (WK’s) fundamental, first
knowledge profiles (WK3 – Fundamental
(CO2-PO2) principles analytical approach
Knowledge, WK4 – Specialist Knowledge,
Cognitive (C5)
WK6- Engineering Practices & WK8 –
WP4: Familiarity of issues
Research Literature)
= infrequently encountered
issues
Conventional FYP
Ability to construct/organise complete
methodological framework/components
Methodology WP3: Depth of analysis = consistent with the following elements:
(CO3-PO4) no obvious solution, (1) objectives;
Psychomotor abstract thinking, (2) scope of work;
(P5) originality. (3) adopt the standard method of
measurements (even if it is not a standard
method of measurement, proper justifications
citation is required);

31
 (4) comprehensive evidence of data collection
planning programme is given,
(5) Flow of proposed activities (measurement/
test run/ calibration etc.) are shown and
(6) Flow of proposed activities with acceptable
justification

FYP during COVID-19 Semester on

Systematic Literature Review
Ability to outline and propose complete
methodological framework/components
consistent with the following elements
(1) comprehensive evidence of data collection
planning for the secondary data set for subject
of interest
(2) development of research question on the
subject of interest
(3) relevancy and place of the topic of interest
compared to other studies and
(4) proper justifications by citation are required.
Ability to carry out a systematic literature
review (interdependence with many parts) on
the following elements:
(1) adapt related theories/ concept and studies
on the subject area;
Literature (2) integrate the previous findings and
WP7: Interdependence =
Review conclude the uniqueness of the present work;
high level problems with
(CO2-PO2) (3) Proper citations (include figures and tables
many parts & subproblems
Cognitive (C5) taken from various sources);
(4) Summary of important information given;
(5) Materials organized according to theme
with evidence of good organization and
(6) Provide some form of justifications on why
research should proceed.

32
Table 4.5: Assessment criteria addressing EAs in FYPs

Element (CO-
EAs Assessment Criteria
PO)/ Domain
Ability to elaborate very clearly, fluently, and
Communication EA1: Range of Resources:
convincingly on involvement of the use of
Skill Involve the use of diverse
diverse resources (people, money, materials,
(CO5-PO10) resources (people, money,
information, technologies) in the experimental/
Affective (A5) information, technologies)
case study.
EA3: Innovation:
Communication
Creative use of Ability to present convincingly the creative use
Skill
engineering principles of engineering principles and research-based
(CO5-PO10)
and research-based knowledge in novel way.
Affective (A5)
knowledge in novel way
EA4: Consequences to
Discussion Ability to discuss and justify the consequences
society and environment:
Q&A to society and environment: highlight
Highlight significant
(CO5-PO10) significant consequences, characterized by
consequences, characterized by
Affective (A5) difficulty of prediction & mitigation.
difficulty of prediction & mitigation
Ability to discuss and explain on the issues
related to the research project beyond
Content of EA5: Familiarity of Issues:
previous experiences (unfamiliarity) consist of
Presentation Extend beyond previous
the following elements: (1) objective (2) scope
(CO5-PO10) experiences using principle-based
of work (3) problem statement (4) significant of
Affective (A5) approaches
study, (5) literature review, (6) methodology,
(7) expected outcomes and (8) references.

4.3 Integrated Design Project (IDP)

Integrated Design Project (IDP) exposes students to engineering design and practices in real
projects. The course includes complex engineering problems and design systems, components,
and processes integrating core areas and meeting specified needs with appropriate
considerations for public health and system, cultural, societal, and environmental. The continuous
assessments in IDP, namely the Capstone Project (Group project) and Case Study Project
(Individual project) have incorporated complex engineering problems.
The capstone project consists of both group and individual assessments. This course requires
students to design a real integrated project in the construction industry and a capstone project.
Students review the background information of the site and the neighbouring sites. They define
and formulate solutions to design problems. Students write a technical report or proposal on
their approach to addressing problems and pursue efforts to develop the proposed solutions
considering real-world constraints. The course also exposes the students to an integrated design
experience with the team members as role-playing planners, designers, users, constructors,
operators and maintenance community where different points of view are promoted, fostering co-
ordination and cooperation among team members. Students will carry out scopes of work in
Structure, Geotechnical, Infrastructure and Construction Management.
Integrated Design Project (Capstone) is a real building and infrastructural project crossing multi-
disciplinary in civil engineering. Students need to apply in-depth engineering knowledge WP1 (at
knowledge profiles WK3-fundamental, WK4-specialist, WK5-design, WK6-practice) in problem
identification and design proposal. Students need to deal with a range of conflicting requirements

33
WP2 (i.e. architect/client, technical, society, authority) in their design, consider and perform in-
depth analysis WP3 to obtain unique/optimised/economical solutions. Many open-ended
subproblems need to be solved in completing the project WP7. For instance, students need to
interpret a set of architectural drawing, site plan and geotechnical site investigation report, perform
detailed analysis, conduct design using extensive codes of practice and modern tools WP5,
prepare engineering drawings (i.e. structural keyplan, infrastructural layout plan, detailings),
project planning, present their proposal, and lastly prepare a technical report that is ready for
submission to authority.
On the one hand, the Case Study Project exposes the students to infrequently encountered civil
engineering problems (WP4). Students are required to choose a real case study that meets the
main theme and propose solutions to the problems in the form of a technical report. Examples of
previous case studies are waste management, construction in hilly terrain, safe falsework, flash
flood mitigation measures, rehabilitation for pavement, structural cracks, stability of crane tower,
slope prevention etc. Students comprehend the roles and the professional responsibility of a civil
engineer to public safety, propose sustainable solutions and evaluate the impacts of engineering
activity in societal and environmental contexts based on previous professional engineering
experiences (WP5).
Table 4.6 and Table 4.7 shows the summarized assessment criteria addressing WPs in Capstone
Project and Case Study Project, respectively. The example of a performance criteria matrix when
assessing WKs, WPs and EAs attribute for IDP Capstone Project and Case Study Project can be
found in Appendix 4.

Table 4.6: Assessment criteria addressing WPs in IDP Capstone Project

Element (CO-
WPs Assessment Criteria
PO)/ Domain
WP1: Depth of Knowledge
Required = in-depth engineering
knowledge at the level of one or
more of WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6
(WK’s) fundamental, first
principles analytical approach Ability to perform design processes with
various design constraints/considerations:(i)
Structural
WP2: Range of Conflicting public health, (ii) safety, (iii) cultural, (iv)
Design
requirements: wide & conflicting societal (v) environmental and (vi) economic
CO2-PO3 (C6)
technical, engineering & other context, and referring to some code of
issues practices

WP5: Extent of applicable

codes

WP7: Interdependence
Ability to interpret and analyse geotechnical
WP2: Range of Conflicting
data, and select suitable foundation with
Selection of requirements: wide & conflicting
justification based on various design
Foundation technical, engineering & other
requirements:(i) safety, (ii) authority, (iii)
CO1-PO1 (C4- issues
geotechnical, (iv) societal (v) environmental
C6)
and (vi) economic context, and (v) code of
WP3: Depth of analysis
practices

34
Table 4.7: Assessment criteria addressing WPs in IDP Case Study Project

Element (CO-
WPs Assessment Criteria
PO)/ Domain

WP1: Depth of Knowledge

Societal Ability to explain the roles, work ethics and
Required = in-depth engineering
Concern responsible of civil engineers to prevent the
knowledge at the level of one or
identified issues and promote public health and
Professionalism more of WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6 or
safety based on knowledge profiles WK3, WK4,
WK7 (WK’s) fundamental, first
CO3-PO6 (C5) WK5, WK6, and WK7
principles analytical approach

Reasoning from WP4: Familiarity of issues: Ability to identify and provide reasoning to the
multiple Infrequently encountered issues infrequently encountered issues/problems in a
contexts real case study assessing societal, health,
CO3-PO6 (C5) safety, legal and/or cultural contexts.

Ability to evaluate implications & consequences

WP5: Extent of applicable
Evaluation of of the selected sustainable solutions in societal
codes: outside problems
Impacts and/or environmental contexts based on
encompassed by standards and
CO4-PO7 (C5) relevant sources from previous professional
codes of practice
engineering experiences.

35
 CHAPTER 5 QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

5.1 Introduction

The Quality Management System (QMS) adopted in UiTM resulted in the establishment of the
policies, internal processes, and practices for the School. The QMS oversees and monitors the
overall achievement of the vision, mission, and objectives of the academic programme offered by
the school. The system is implemented and supported with adequate arrangements for planning,
development, delivery, and review of the Civil Engineering programme and academic and
professional development of staff. The assessment and monitoring system is developed
according to the established quality assurance standards to ensure the efficiency of the
implementation of the QMS.
The implementation of complex problems and complex engineering activities for each course is
set in the Lesson Plan. Lecturers formulate the tasks in assessment tools. The distribution of the
marks for complex and non-complex problems is set in the Examination Specification Table (EST)
as shown in Figure 5.1. The EST shows the distribution of marks that tally with what has been set
by the School on POs and the percentage of the level of difficulty. Level C5 – C6 reflects that the
assessment will incorporate complex problems and complex engineering activities.

Figure 5.1: Example of Examination Specification Table (EST)

36
An internal audit is also conducted to check the POs and the relevant WKs and WPs addressed
in the assessment. The complex problems are incorporated in the final examination for the
courses in Year 4 while it appears in any other assessment tools for Year 1 to Year 3. Figure 5.2
shows the checklist used for the internal audit and moderation of course that incorporate complex
engineering problem and activities characteristics.

Figure 5.2: Internal Audit and Moderation Checklist for assessment incorporating (top) Complex
Engineering Problem, and (bottom) Complex Engineering Activities

37
5.2 Support Services and Moderation Process

Support services were provided by the school's complex problem committee members, such as
consultation, review, and moderation, for lecturers to create assignments/projects and develop
assessment rubrics that incorporate complex problems. Referring to Instructional Guidance
(Teaching & Learning) for Lecturers Amid Covid-19 Concerns Semester 2 2020/2021, moderation
of online and F2F assessments (test, assignment/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 Division Coordinator (KB) and Complex Problem Committee).
The complex engineering problems and complex engineering activities form MUST be finalized
(approved by the KB and Complex Problem Committee) at least one (1) WEEK prior to the
assessments being given to the students. Therefore, the form shall be submitted to the Complex
Problem Committee for review at least one (1) MONTH before the assessments are given to the
students. Table 5.1 show the responsibility and participation of the academic staff in the
moderation activities of the continuous assessment and final examination, respectively. Figure
5.3 presents an infographic to illustrate the process.

Table 5.1: Procedure in Preparing Complex Problem Instruments for Continuous Assessment

Step Activity Person In Charge

1 Inform to AJK CP about the due date for continuous Head of School (KP)
assessment (complex problem) for the review.

2 Prepare questions and rubrics based on the complex problem Course Coordinator
criteria for courses that assess complex problems in (KK)
continuous assessment based on the template.

3 Fill in Vetting Complex Problem Form.

4 Submit vetting form, questions, and rubrics to the RP.

5 Review the questions, rubrics, and answer scheme related to Resource Person (RP)
complex problems.

6 Propose any improvement to questions, rubrics, and answer

scheme related to the complex problems.

7 Verify the Complex Problem Vetting Form.

8 Review the questions, rubrics and answer scheme related to Complex Problem
complex problems. Committee
(AJK CP)
9 Propose any improvement to questions, rubrics, and answer
scheme related to the complex problems and submit those
documents to RP for correction.

10 Verify the Complex Problem Vetting Form.

11 Return to Resource Person.

38
 12 Make any necessary corrections to the questions, rubrics and Resource Person (RP)
answer scheme related to complex problems. and Course
Coordinator (KK)
13 Submit questions, rubrics, answer scheme to the KB.

14 Approve the Complex Problem Vetting Form. Division Coordinator

(KB)

15 Inform KB/KP list of the vetted courses for complex problems. Complex Problem
Committee (AJK CP)

16 Take action to non-compliance RP/KK. Head of School (KP)

17 Prepare a mapping between courses and complex problems. Complex Problem

Committee (AJK CP)
18 Submit to KP.

19 Prepare CQI. Head of School (KP)

Figure 5.3: Moderation Process for Complex Problem Instruments

The template for vetting complex problems can be downloaded from the link
https://tinyurl.com/4ah7tjx6 and the submission of the relevant documents also can be uploaded
in the link https://qrgo.page.link/Qtnrf. The submission documents include a set of question/ task/
(s), rubrics/ performance criteria matrix and the self-assessment form. The self-assessment form
for complex problems and complex engineering activities is shown in Figure 5.4.

39
Lecturers can send their assignments/projects that have incorporated complex engineering
problem solving or complex engineering activities, to be reviewed by the following committees:

1. Prof. Dr Hamidah Mohd Saman

(Email: [email protected] / HP: 0192361274)
2. Assoc Prof. Ir Dr Che Maznah Mat Isa
(Email: [email protected] / HP: 0196204707)
3. Ir Dr Oh Chai Lian
(Email: [email protected] / HP: 0173308787)
4. Ir Ts Noorfaizah Binti Hamzah
(Email: [email protected]/ HP: 010236 6476)
5. Ts Dr Rusdi bin Rusli
(Email: [email protected] / HP: 01133023772)
6. Ts Dr Musmuliadi Kamaruding
(Email: [email protected] / HP: 0198709357)
7. Dr Norfarah Nadia Ismail
(Email: [email protected] / HP: 0164128021)
8. Dr Nurul Rabitah binti Daud
(Email: [email protected] / HP: 0179179126)

9. Ts Dr Irma Noorazurah binti Mohamad

(Email: [email protected] / HP: 0122190315)

5.3 Submission for Review/Moderation

Documents submission for review/moderation are standardized and lecturers must follow the
template as given in the link. The following sub-sections explain the submission components.

5.3.1 Assessment Details

The following information and documents should be included when submitting an

assignment/project for review/moderation:

1. Introduction of assignment/project addressing the relevant Knowledge Profile (WKs)

and Complex Engineering Problem / Complex Engineering Activities attributes
(WPs/EAs) with the COPO, assessment and mapping of COPO with WP.
2. Objective of the assignment/ project.
3. Mapping of CO, PO, WP, EA and WK.
4. The assignment/project learning outcomes.
5. The problem statement (open-ended).
6. Course Assessment Table (CAT) that contains the assessment tools (i.e. report,
presentation, case study, video presentation etc.) and their weightage/percentage
distribution for evaluating student’s performance in achieving the assignment/project
objectives and the complex problem-solving skills.

40
 7. Performance Criteria Matrix according to the assessment tool and learning domain.

5.3.2 Complex Problem Self-Assessment Form

The self-assessment form Version 5 was developed in March 2022 as shown in Figure 5.4. It is
an excel form and contained in three (3) worksheets; Worksheet 1 (Internal Audit Checklist),
Worksheet 2 (Assessment Form) and Worksheet 3 (Description-WP & EA & Rubrics). The
followings are the step-by-step process for lecturer/vetter/auditor/moderator to carry out self-
audit, internal audit, vetting and moderation of complex engineering problems and complex
engineering activities in assignment and examination questions by using the complex engineering
problems/engineering activities’ (WP & EA) self-assessment form.
The steps for the lecturer/vetter/auditor/moderator to fill or to moderate the form is detailed in the
following. Manual on how to fill in the complex problem vetting form was published in 2021 is
presented in Appendix 5.

Figure 5.4: Complex Problem Self-Assessment Form

STEP 1 – Complete Worksheet 1 Internal Audit Checklist

Refer to Worksheet 1 of the WP and EA self-assessment form. The internal audit checklist
involves several parts, as shown in Figure 5.5.
The lecturers can first read and understand the summary of the checklist on WPs and EAs as
shown in Figure 5.5a. Then, the lecturers need to tick for the relevant POs that are mapped to
the assessment (Figure 5.5b). Note that complex engineering problems (WPs) are only

41
incorporated in seven (7) POs, which are PO1, PO2, PO3, PO4, PO5, PO6, and PO7, whereas
complex engineering activities (EAs) are addressed in PO10.
Then, the lecturers need to tick on the relevant Knowledge Profile (WKs) required for the course
assignment, as shown in Figure 5.5c. There are nine (9) knowledge profiles as suggested in
GAPC 2021. Note that WKs under WP1: Depth of Knowledge Required, the in-depth engineering
knowledge must be at the level of one or more of WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6, or WK8 (WK’s)
fundamental, first principles analytical approach.
Next, the lecturer can tick the relevant WPs and/or EAs that are addressed in the assessment
shown in Figure 5.5d and Figure 5.5e, respectively. The assessment form clearly indicates that
the complex engineering problems MUST CONSIST WP1 AND SOME OR ALL of WP2 to WP7.
Note that “some” means AT LEAST TWO (2) WPs must be incorporated. In addition, WP1 shall
consist of AT LEAST TWO (2) WKs (WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6 & WK8).
For courses mapped to PO10, an assignment or a project MUST incorporate complex engineering
activities (EAs). There are five (5) EAs attributes. Lecturers can tick AT LEAST TWO (2) EAs
relevant to the assessment.

42
 (a)

(b) (c)

(d) (e)

Figure 5.5: Worksheet 1 Internal Audit Checklist components for (a) summary of checklist for
WPs and EAs, (b) checklist for relevant POs, (c) checklist for relevant WKs, (d) checklist for
relevant WPs, and (e) checklist for relevant EAs.

43
STEP 2 Complete Worksheet 2 – Assessment Form
Fill in the Assessment Form in Worksheet 2, as shown in Figure 5.6. Describe the final
examination question/ assignment and elaborate it in relation to the assigned WK/WP/EA using
the descriptors in Worksheet 3. This form must be vetted by the Resource Person (RP),
verified by the Complex Problems Committee, and approved by the Division Coordinator
(KB).

The lecturers are encouraged to refer to Worksheet 3 Descriptions of WPs and EAs Rubrics when
filling the Worksheet 2. Choose the relevant rubrics for WPs and EAs and improve them to suit
your assignment/examination questions.
The lecturers may also design your specific rubrics for the project/assignment with reference to
the generic WPs and EAs rubrics as shown in Worksheet 3 (can also refer to Table 3.1 and Table
3.2).

5.4 Guideline for Moderator

Complex Problems Committee has published a Guideline for Complex Problem Moderators in
2021, which can be found in Appendix 6. Moderators play an important role and responsibility in
ensuring the successful implementation of complex engineering problems in the programme.
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 suggest
a re-vetting process if needed.
➢ To endorse the assessments with the implementation of WP and EA in the Complex
Problem Vetting Form.

Figure 5.7 shows the roles of the moderators to ensure the implementation of complex problems
and complex engineering activities is understood and well-reviewed; therefore, CQI can be carried
out.

44
Figure 5.6: Worksheet 2 Self-assessment Form for WPs, EAs, and WKs

45
 Figure 5.7: Guideline for the Moderator

STEP 1 Receive
➢ Moderator will receive notification from Monitoring team under Complex Problem Committee
is on the course to be evaluated.
➢ Moderator only evaluates the documents submitted through the Complex Problem system.
➢ If documents are sent to personal email or chat box, the moderator is to advise academic
staff to submit their documents through the submission form provided by Complex Problem
Committee or the link: https://qrgo.page.link/Qtnrf

STEP 2 Pre-Checking
➢ Moderator needs to pre-check the documents before starting the evaluation.
➢ If the documents are incomplete, the moderator needs to request the respective lecturer to
re-submit the documents, in not more than three (3) days after receiving notification on the
evaluation.
● The documents that must submitted for Test/Final Examination are Questions, Answer
Scheme, and CP Vetting Form, whereas for Continuous Assessment are Project
Description, Rubrics, CP Vetting Form.
STEP 3 Evaluation
There are three (3) steps of evaluation for the moderator, which are:
i. Evaluation of the Questions
➢ The moderator needs to ensure the respective lecturer provides good alignment of
POs, taxonomy domain, and level of difficulty.
➢ Figure 5.8 shows examples of test/final examination and project that indicate the
POs, taxonomy domain and level of difficulty.

46
 (a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 5.8: Alignment of POs, taxonomy domain, and level of difficulty in (a) test, (b) project
description, and (c) rubrics
➢ Moderator also needs to ensure the respective lectures provide questions with the
appropriateness of WPs, WKs, and EAs.
➢ The following checklist may provide a guideline for the moderator in their evaluation:
● Does the assessment need to address WP/EA?
(If PO1-7 address WP, PO10 address EA)
● Does the assessment satisfy complex engineering problem requirements?
(Have adequate WPs: WP1 is a must, and at least two other WPs)

47
 ● Does the assessment satisfy complex engineering activities requirements?
(Have adequate EAs: At least two EAs)
● What is the knowledge (WKs) required to solve the problems? Are they relevant to
POs?
● Are the questions/tasks demonstrating WP/ EA characteristics?
(Verified with tasks descriptions, answer scheme, rubrics)
● Are the questions/tasks/rubrics mapped to WKs, WPs, and EAs explicitly? Are they
aligned with POs and Taxonomy domains and levels of difficulties?
● Are these WKs, WPs, and/or EAs relevant and suitable?
(Refer Complex Problem descriptor in Complex Problem Assessment Form)
➢ Lastly, the moderator needs to ensure the Questions have descriptions in Tasks and
Rubrics that explicitly address WKs, WPs, and EAs. Refer to example in Figure 5.9.

Figure 5.9: Example of Description in Task and Rubrics

ii. Evaluation on the CP Assessment Form

➢ Figure 5.10 outlines the main evaluation on the CP Assessment Form:
○ Moderator needs to make sure the course details are correct.
○ Moderator also needs to make sure the CO, PO, and Bloom Taxonomy level as
claimed in the evaluated questions and make sure the description of questions
explicitly addresses WP, EA, and WKs.
○ Lastly, the moderator also needs to make sure of the mapping of the WPs, WKs,
and EAs as claimed in the evaluated questions.

48
 Figure 5.10: Evaluation on CP Assessment Form

Example of Description in Assessment Form:

WP1-The question requires the students' in-depth engineering knowledge at the level of WK3
(fundamental), WK4 (specialist), WK5 (design), and WK6 (practice) in proposing a practical
and rational structural key plan; WP2- The students are required to make necessary
considerations on both the client and technical requirements/issues in proposing the initial
layout and dimensions of the structural elements. WP3 & WP7- The design issues/problems
are unstructured, and in many sub-parts (i.e. students need to interpret the architectural
drawing, identify and analyze different issues and the solutions are unstructured (different
solutions raised based on their creativity and unique design considerations).

iii. Comments in the Vetting process

➢ The moderator is required to give a comment in the column provided, as shown in
Figure 5.11.

49
 Figure 5.11: Comments Section in the Vetting Process

STEP 4 DECISION
There are two (2) responsibilities of vetter for the decision process as follows:
i. Decisions from the Vetting Process
➢ If the test/final examination and continuous assessment questions are required for
improvement, the moderator must request the second submission from the
respective lecturer.
➢ If the test/final examination and continuous assessment questions are still required
for improvement, the moderator needs to request from the respective lecturer for
the third submission.
➢ The moderator must ensure the test/final examination and continuous assessment
questions meet all the requirements. The vetter must also fill in all the comments
and verify the Complex Problem Assessment Form.
➢ Lastly, the vetter needs to request from the respective lecturer for final submission,
which all documents need to be approved by the Division Coordinator (KB).
ii. Send an email to the Lecturer in charge
➢ The moderator needs to make decision in two weeks after receiving the notification
of the evaluation.
➢ Then, the moderator needs to email the decision to the lecturer in charge.
➢ If the moderator request to re-submit from the lecturer in charge, submission needs
to be done through the link https://qrgo.page.link/Qtnrf

50
STEP 5 RECORD
➢ Vetter needs to upload comments made to the questions into the system, with file names
indicating draft 1, draft 2, etc.
➢ Documentation team needs to make sure all final documents are in the system.
➢ Monitoring team needs to prepare a Mapping of WPs/EAs to courses at the programme level.
➢ CQI team needs to report if there is any improvement in the vetting process.

5.5 Continual Quality Improvement (CQI)

Continually Quality Improvement (CQI) for implementing complex engineering problems and
activities has begun since 2012. Until now, the implementation of complex engineering problems
and engineering activities has still gone through an improvement process. The CQI is regularly
performed at two (2) levels: at the Programme level and Course level, and will be described in
the following sub-section. The CQI for implementation of complex engineering problems in the
School can be seen in Table 1.1.

5.5.1 Programme Level

The School has formed a Complex Problem Committee whose roles are to advise, train, review
and moderate the submission of all assessments containing complex problems. Quality meeting
to review the WPs attributes for each course; consequently, the WPs attributes addressed in the
programme will be known. In addition, the OBE trainings on complex problems are regularly
conducted to enhance the lecturers' understanding and update the latest requirements from EAC
and International Engineering Alliance (IEA), which is detailed in next section.

5.5.2 Course Level

The lecturers can improve their assessment rubrics/tests/examinations with complex problems
after the moderation process at the course level. Comments from the Complex Problem
Committee facilitate the lecturers to understand the complex engineering problem, and thus can
design their tasks/questions that reflect the attainment/ construction alignment/ complex problem
in specific and explicitly.

5.6 Outcome Based Education (OBE) Training

Various OBE training workshops related to complex engineering problems are carried out for the
academic staff together with publications and conference presentations to continuously improve
their knowledge, understanding and skills related to teaching, learning and assessment aspects.
Table 5.2 shows various training workshops/conference/journal related to complex problems in
year 2020-2022.

51
Table 5.2: Training workshops/conference/journal related to complex problems (2020-2022)

Training/Workshop/Conference/Journal Date

OBE and Complex Problem Talk during PKSP Every semester during
PKSP & Academic
Week

Alternative Assessment: Adherence to WP and EA by Ir. Dr. Siti Hawa 06 July 2020
Hamzah, Director of EAD, Board of Engineers Malaysia

Constructive Alignment: To ensure assessment fulfilling WK, WP & EA 18 August 2020

characteristics for Review of Curriculum for EC220 by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ir.
Che Maznah Mat Isa
Complex Problem Committee, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Assoc. Director (Civil), Engineering Accreditation Department, Board of
Engineers Malaysia

Programme Outcome Attributes related to Complex Engineering Problem International

Capability: Perceptions of Engineering Students in Malaysia by Che Maznah Conference TQM-TEd
Mat Isa, Nik ‘Irfan Aiman Mohammad, Nur Izzati Ab. Rani & Nor Hayati Saad 202, March 2021

Bengkel Rubrics Design For Culminating Courses (LI, IDP, FYP) and Course 14-15 September 2021
ENT

A Short Course on Complex Engineering Problems & Activities’ 28 September 2021

Implementation in Engineering Curriculum to fulfill EAC Standard
2020/GAPC2021 & Moderation Process for CEP & CEA Committee

Bengkel Open Ended Laboratory (OEL) 1 October 2021

A Systematic Approach in Complex Engineering Problems & Activities’ 04 October 2021

Implementation in Engineering Curriculum: Adherence to the EAC Standard
2020 by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ir. Che Maznah Mat Isa, Complex Problem
Committee, Faculty of Civil Engineering & Assoc. Director (Civil), Engineering
Accreditation Department, Board of Engineers Malaysia

Harmonising the Requirements of UiTM and BEM for Curriculum Design and 14 October 2021
Delivery in line with The Graduate Attributes, Delivered by Ir. Dr. Siti Hawa
Hamzah

Effective Implementation of Complex Engineering Problems and Complex Asian Journal of

Engineering Activities in Malaysian Engineering Curricular by Che Maznah Mat University Education
Isa, Oh Chai Lian, Liew Chia Pao, Hamidah Mohd Saman, Che Khairil Izam (AJUE), Volume 17,
Che Ibrahim & Zulkiflee Yusof Number 4, October
2021

52
5.7 Introduction to Graduate Attribute Professional Competencies (GAPC 2021) and
Roadmap to the new GAPC in 2024

Under the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) Constituent Agreements there are (1)
Washington Accord for International Professional Engineers Agreement, (2) Sydney Accord for
International Engineering Technologists Agreement and (3) Dublin Accord APEC Engineer
Agreement and Agreement for International Engineering Technicians. International agreements
govern the recognition of engineering educational qualifications and professional competence,
thus establishing and enforcing internationally bench-marked standards. Recently, in June 2021,
the IEA has announced that all Accords and Agreements have approved revisions to its Graduate
Attributes and Professional Competencies (GAPC) international benchmark. The review,
supported by UNESCO, was undertaken by a joint IEA-WFEO Working Group who engaged
extensively with IEA signatories, WFEO members and WFEO partners representing academics,
industry, and women globally. They reflect requirements for new technologies and engineering
disciplines, new pedagogies, and values such as sustainable development, diversity and inclusion
and ethics. They are well positioned to support the engineering role in building a more sustainable
and equitable world (GAPC2021). Table 5.3 shows the latest Graduate Attribute 2021 mapped to
the current POs.
Table 5.3: Mapping of Graduate Attributes (WA) with Knowledge Profile (WP), Complex Problems
(WP) and Complex Engineering Activities (EA)

PO PO STATEMENT WK WP
(EC220/CEEC220/CEEC22 WA WA STATEMENT /EA
2)

PO1: Apply knowledge of

Apply knowledge of
Enginee mathematics, natural
mathematics, natural
ring WA1: Engineering science, computing and
science, engineering
Knowle Knowledge: Breadth, engineering fundamentals,
fundamentals and an WK1
dge depth and type of and an engineering
engineering specialization - WP
knowledge, both specialization as specified in
as specified in WK1 to WK4
theoretical and WK1 to WK4 respectively to
WK4 respectively to the
practical develop solutions to
solution of complex
complex engineering
engineering problems
problems

PO2: Identify, formulate, research

Problem Identify, formulate, conduct literature, and analyze
Analysis research literature, and complex engineering
: analyze complex problems reaching
engineering problems substantiated conclusions
WA2: Problem WK1
reaching substantiated using first principles of
Analysis Complexity - WP
conclusions using first mathematics, natural
of analysis WK4
principles of mathematics, sciences and engineering
natural sciences and sciences with holistic
engineering sciences (WK1 considerations for
to WK4); sustainable development*
(WK1 to WK4)

PO3 Design solutions for WA3: Design/ WA3: Design creative

Design/ complex engineering development of solutions for complex WK5 WP
Develop problems and design solutions: Breadth engineering problems and

53
ment of systems, components or and uniqueness of design systems, components
Solution processes that meet engineering or processes to meet
s specified needs with problems i.e., the identified needs with
appropriate consideration extent to which appropriate consideration for
for public health and safety, problems are original public health and safety,
cultural, societal, and and to which whole-life cost, net zero
environmental solutions have not carbon as well as
considerations (WK5) previously been resource, cultural, societal,
identified or codified and environmental
considerations as required
(WK5

PO4: Conduct investigation of Conduct investigations of

Investig complex engineering complex engineering
ation problems using research- problems using research
based knowledge (WK8) WA4: Investigation: methods including research-
and research methods Breadth and depth based knowledge, design of
WK8 WP
including design of of investigation and experiments, analysis and
experiments, analysis and experimentation interpretation of data, and
interpretation of data, and synthesis of information to
synthesis of information to provide valid conclusions
provide valid conclusions; (WK8)

PO5: Create, select, and apply Create, select and apply, and
Modern appropriate techniques, WA5: Tool Usage: recognize limitations of
Tool resources, and modern Level of appropriate techniques,
Usage engineering and IT tools, understanding of resources, and modern WK2
including prediction and the engineering and IT tools, , WP
modelling, to complex appropriateness of including prediction and WK6
engineering problems, with technologies and modelling, to complex
an understanding of the tools engineering problems (WK2
limitations (WK6) and WK6)

PO6: Apply reasoning informed When solving complex

The by contextual knowledge to engineering problems,
Enginee assess societal, health, WA6: The Engineer analyze and evaluate
WK1
r and safety, legal and cultural and the World: sustainable development
,
Society issues and the consequent Level of knowledge impacts* to: society, the
WK5 WP
responsibilities relevant to and responsibility economy, sustainability,
&WK
professional engineering for sustainable health and safety, legal
7
practice and solutions to development frameworks, and the
complex engineering environment (WK1, WK5,
problems (WK7); and WK7)

PO7: Understand and evaluate

Environ the sustainability and
ment impact of professional
and engineering work in the
Sustain solutions of complex
ability - engineering problems in
societal and environmental
contexts. (WK7)

PO8: Apply ethical principles and WA7: Ethics: Apply ethical principles and
WK9 -
Ethics commit to professional Understanding and commit to professional ethics

54
 ethics and responsibilities level of practice and norms of engineering
and norms of engineering WA7: practice and adhere to
practice (WK7) relevant national and
international laws.
Demonstrate an
understanding of the need
for diversity and inclusion
(WK9)

PO9: Function effectively as an

Individu Function effectively as an WA8 Individual and individual, and as a member
al and individual, and as a Collaborative or leader in diverse and
Teamw member or leader in Teamwork: Role in inclusive teams and in multi- WK9 -
ork diverse teams and in multi- and diversity of disciplinary, face-to-face,
disciplinary setting team remote and distributed
settings (WK9)

PO10: Communicate effectively and

Communicate effectively on
Commu inclusively on complex
complex engineering
nication engineering activities with
activities with the
the engineering community
engineering community and WA9
and with society at large,
with society at large, such Communication:
such as being able to
as being able to Level of
comprehend and write - EA
comprehend and write communication
effective reports and design
effective reports and design according to type of
documentation, make
documentation, make activities performed
effective presentations,
effective presentations, and
taking into account
give and receive clear
cultural, language, and
instructions;
learning differences.

PO11: Demonstrate knowledge Apply knowledge and

Project and understanding of understanding of engineering
Manage engineering management WA10: Project management principles and
ment principles and economic Management and economic decision-making
and decision making and apply Finance: Level of and apply these to one’s own
- -
Finance these to one’s own work, management work, as a member and
as a member and leader in required for differing leader in a team, and to
a team, to manage projects types of activity manage projects and in
in multidisciplinary multidisciplinary
environments; environments.

PO12: Recognize the need for, and

Lifelong have the preparation and
Recognize the need for and
Learnin ability for i) independent and
have the preparation and
g life-long learning ii)
ability to engage in WA11 Lifelong
adaptability to new and
independent and life-long learning: Duration - -
emerging technologies and
learning in the broadest and manner
iii) critical thinking in the
context of technological
broadest context of
change.
technological change
(WK8)

55
Table 5.4 shows the current WP based on the EAC Standard 2020 mapped to the GAPC2021,
while Table 5.5 shows the current EA based on the EAC Standard 2020 mapped to the
GAPC2021.

Table 5.4: Mapping of Complex engineering Problems (WP) between EAC Standard 2020 and
GAPC2021

ENGINEERING EAC Standard 2020 GAPC (2021)

PROBLEMS (WP)
Engineering Problem WP1 & some or all of WP2-WP7
Depth of WP1 (KNOWLEDGE) - in-depth engineering knowledge at the level of
knowledge one or more of WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6 or WK8 which allows a
required fundamental based, first principles analytical approach
Range of WP2 (CONFLICTING) - wide- Involve wide-ranging or conflicting
conflicting ranging or conflicting technical, technical and non- technical issues
requirements* engineering and other issues (such as ethical, sustainability,
legal, political, economic, societal)
and consideration of future
requirements
Depth of analysis WP3 (ANALYSIS) - no obvious Have no obvious solution and require
required solution and require abstract abstract thinking, creativity and
thinking, originality in analysis to originality and in analysis to
formulate suitable models formulate suitable models
Familiarity of issues WP4 (FAMILIARITY) - infrequently Involve infrequently encountered
encountered issues issues or novel problems
Extent of applicable WP5 (CODES) - outside problems Address problems not
codes encompassed by standards and encompassed by standards and
codes of practice for professional codes of practice for professional
engineering engineering
Extent of WP6 (STAKEHOLDER) - diverse Involve collaboration across
stakeholder groups of stakeholders with widely engineering disciplines and other
involvement & varying needs fields and diverse groups of
conflicting stakeholders with widely varying
requirements needs
Interdependence WP7 (INTERDEPENDENCE) - Address high level problems with
high level problems including many components or sub-problems
many component parts or sub- that may require a systems
problems approach.

Note: Red text indicates the difference between the two references.

56
Table 5.5: Mapping of Complex Engineering Activities (EA) between EAC Standard 2020 and
GAPC2021

ENGINEERING EAC Standard 2020 GAPC (2021)

ACTIVITIES (EA) Engineering Activities SOME or ALL of EA1-EA5
EA1 (RESOURCES) - involve Involve the use of diverse
Range of the use of diverse resources resources including people, data
resources (and for this purpose resources and information, natural,
includes people, money, financial and physical resources
equipment, materials, and appropriate technologies
information and including analytical and design
technologies) software
EA2 (INTERACTION) - require Require optimal resolution of
Level of resolution of significant problems interactions between wide-ranging or
interactions arising from interactions between conflicting. Require resolution of
wide-ranging or conflicting significant technical, non-technical,
technical, engineering or other and engineering issues,
issues
EA3 (INNOVATION) - involve Involve creative use of engineering
Innovation creative use of engineering principles, innovative solutions
principles and research- based for a conscious purpose, and
knowledge in novel ways research-based knowledge.
Consequences to EA4 (SOCIETY & ENV) - have
society and the significant consequences in a Have significant consequences in a
environment range of contexts, characterized range of contexts, characterized by
by difficulty of prediction and difficulty of prediction and mitigation.
mitigation
Familiarity of EA5 (FAMILIARITY) - can extend beyond previous experiences by applying
issues principles- based approaches.

Note: Red text indicates the difference between the two references.

57
 APPENDICES

This guideline “Outcome Based Education (OBE) - Guideline For Incorporating Complex
Engineering Problems And Activities In Teaching, Learning And Assessment For Civil
Engineering Programme” is supported by a total of six (6) Appendices as follows:
Appendix 1: Illustrative Notes for WPs and EAs
Appendix 2: Good Samples of Assessment Rubrics Incorporating WPs and EAs
✓ Sample 1a: ECC 586/589 – Engineers in Society
✓ Sample 1b: ECW 435 – Hydraulics
✓ Sample 1c: ECS555 – Numerical Analysis and Finite Element Method
✓ Sample 1d: ECG553 Geotechniques
Appendix 3: Assessment Rubrics for FYPs
Appendix 4: Assessment Rubrics for IDP
Appendix 5: Guideline for Complex Problem Assessment Form
Appendix 6: Guideline for Complex Problem Moderators

58