Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
net/publication/281430106
CITATIONS READS
0 3,057
6 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Wan Ahmad Najmi Wan Mohamed on 02 September 2015.
ABSTRACT
Complex Engineering Problem (CEP) is required in the section 4.0 Program Outcomes of the 2012 Engineering
Accreditation Council Manual. The CEP covers 5 out of 12 listed Program Outcomes in that manual. Therefore,
all of the engineering programs must implement the CEP in their courses. The five criteria of the CEP challenge
both the lecturers and students in developing and solving a practical engineering problem that comprehensively
applies the methods outlined throughout the syllabus. Before 2013, the assignment to students in MEC551
(Thermal Engineering) are based on individual topics and Course Outcomes (CO). As one of the core courses in
the Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering (Hons.) program, the assignment weightage and scope were expanded
as a platform to assess the students understanding on the relation and interactions of the individual topics within
the syllabus in a practical environment. The course consists of heat transfer fundamentals and applied
thermodynamic systems with 5 CO at intermediate Cognitive levels. The development of the CPE to meet the
defined criteria was based on the design analysis concept of an air-conditioning system. The problem solving
allows the students to apply 6 out of 7 topics within the syllabus and great emphasis was given on safety and
environmental preservation issues. Solutions of the various sub-system analyses were assigned with individual
CO and mapped to measure the PO contributions. Overall, the students showed a good ability to formulate
solution structures as it is shown by Key Performance Index (KPI) achievements of CO4 and CO3 at 88% and
81% of the students achieved at least 50% of the marks, respectively. The awareness on safety and
environmental issues are also good as it is shown by 87% CO5 KPI achievement. However, the ability to explain
and interpret the problem properly needs to be further improved as it is shown by the lowest percentage of the
KPI for the CO1 that directly relates to C2 cognitive level (explanation) achievement.
PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12
CO1 x
CO2 x
CO3 x
CO4 x
CO5 x
The Course Outcomes 1 to 4 contributes to level 5 students. The objective of the assignment is for
2 to 5 of the cognitive domain in the Bloom’s the students to conduct a design modeling of an air
Taxonomy. Course Outcome 5 is correlated to the conditioning system.
level 3 of the affective domain. The Course
Outcomes and Program Outcomes are mapped into
the CO-PO matrix that is shown in the Table 4. The
table shows that the CO1 and CO2 contribute to the
PO1, CO3 is correlated to the PO2, CO4 contains
the solutions element that should be measured using
complex engineering problem and CO5 attributes to
the knowledge of the environmental sustainability.
b. Calculate the mass flow rate and for each element and their link to the Course
approximate COP of the refrigeration cycle Outcomes. From Table 5, the marks distribution for
if the R-134a is used as the working fluid. CO2 is 15%, 20% for each CO1, CO3 and CO5 and
c. Discuss all factors to be considered in the 25 % for CO4. A rubric for the writing report
selection of the refrigerant. assessment was also provided to the student to
The students are required to state their assumptions guide them attaining a better mark. This rubric
and the basis of selection of design parameters. assists lecturers to have a common marking
scheme. Figure 3 shows the provided rubric which
describes all the elements in the report content. The
rubric gives benchmarks for Excellent, Acceptable
and Poor criteria.
Number of Students
150 172
Result and Discussion 152
Number of Students
150
CO2 66% Moderate
CO3 67% Moderate 100 117
104
CO4 74% Good
CO5 70% Good 50 61
35
Overall 71% Good 0
The mean value for the CO1 achievement is Very Poor Poor Moderate Good Excellent
63% and it is at Moderate level. Figure 4 shows the Rating Level
achievement for the CO1. The highest number of
students is achieved in the Good level, follows by Figure 6 CO3 Achievement
Moderate level. Only 19 students show Very Poor
level. 200
Course Outcome 4
Number of Students
178
200
Course Outcome 1 150
148
127
Number of Students
100
150 168
145
50
100
104 18 41
76 0
50
19 Very Poor Poor Moderate Good Excellent
Rating
0
Very Poor Poor Moderate Good Excellent Figure 7 CO4 Achievement
Rating Level
200
students. The highest number of 172 students has 192
attained Good level. It is the followed with the 150
Moderate level with 152 students. Poor level has 145
the lowest number of 47 students. The mean value 100
106
for the CO2 is 66% which is at Moderate level.
50
32 37
The CO3 achievement is shown in Figure 6. 0
There is only 35 students have achieved Poor level. Very Poor Poor Moderate Good Excellent
The Good level has the highest number of students Rating Level
which is 195. The mean value for CO3 is 67%
which is at the Moderate level. Figure 8 CO5 Achievement
Figure 7 shows the CO4 achievements from the
given assignment. 178 students have achieved the
6th IEEE International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED) 2014
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Good level which is the highest number in the CO5. least achieve 50% of the marks. The CO1 requires
There is only 18 students have achieved Very Poor the students to describe and interpret the given
level. The mean value for the CO4 is 74% which is problem in their own words and utilize the
the Good level and this is the highest mean value publication resources such books, engineering
for all Course Outcomes. standard, proceeding papers and journals. The
attainment has shown that the students are less
The CO5 is the only affective domain that is expressive in reporting the problem.
covered in the Thermal Engineering Course
Outcomes while the other outcomes are based on The highest KPI is achieved for the CO4 where
cognitive evaluation. The mean value for the CO5 the students have to give a mathematical solution to
achievement is 70% which is at Good level. The solve Complex Engineering Problem. In the CO4,
CO5 achievement is shown in Figure 8. There are students are required to adapt the mathematical
32 students that have attained Very Poor level and solution into the engineering problem. They need to
192 students that have achieved Good level. choose a correct equation to solve them. For
example, the Reynolds number of air flow must be
examined so that the type of flow can be identified.
250 Overall Marks
Subsequently, a correspond Nusselt number
equation can be used to determine the heat
Number of Students
200
206 convection coefficient, h.
150
Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI)
138
100 Analysis
108
50 The CQI analysis is done to improve the
17
43 assessment method for the given Complex
0 Engineering Problem. Feedbacks were collected
Very Poor Poor Moderate Good Excellent from the lectures and students. The students
Rating Level reporting outcome was also evaluated to improve
the rubrics criteria. There are several issues that
Figure 9 Overall Marks Achievement were deduced from this assessment method.
Figure 9 shows the Overall marks that are
achieved by the students. The mean value of the Language Capability
Overall marks is 71 % which is at Good level. The The main issue that was highlighted by lectures
highest number of students achieved Good level is poor English writing and comprehension. One of
with a total of 206 students. Then, it is followed by the lecturers highlighted the need to spend more
the Moderate level with 138 students. The Very than 3 hours in describing the assignments during
Poor level has the lowest number which is at 17 class as the students lacks understanding on the
students. given problem. The technical report writing must
also be improved. There are many typos and
KPI Achievement grammar mistakes were found in the report. The
100% sentence structure must be improved too. Many
76% 81% 81% 88% 87% 88% lecturers found their student doing plagiarism. It is
Percentage of Students
References
1. Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM),
Engineering Programme Accreditation
Manual (2012), October 2012.