Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Mechanisms Effectiveness of Closing-The-Loop (CTL) Processes on Subsequent Course Outcomes Attainment

Outcome Based Education (OBE) is embedded within Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI), which keeps academic programmes relevant, effective, and aligned with institutional and accreditation standards. Closing-the-Loop (CTL) mechanisms are central to this process, ensuring that improvement actions are actually implemented and that the results of those actions are captured and evaluated for subsequent Programme Learning Outcome (PLO) attainment. Many institutions, however, struggle to move beyond documenting CQI intentions toward demonstrating that interventions produce measurable, sustained improvement, particularly where evidence remains scattered across course reports, CQI logs, moderation records, and committee minutes. This study investigates the effectiveness of CTL mechanisms in enhancing PLO attainment within a higher education programme, focusing on how well-structured, evidence-based closing-the-loop processes translate CQI actions into demonstrable outcome gains. The study draws on Course Achievement Analysis Reports from selected academic courses, observing PLO score trends across baseline, post-intervention, and follow-up cycles. Evidence was triangulated across Course Achievement Analysis Reports which include CLO-PLO attainment and CQI documentation. The results show that well-structured CTL processes make a significant contribution to PLO attainment, help address persistent achievement gaps, and strengthen the linkages between curriculum delivery, assessment design, and learning support. Verification of Effectiveness reinforced academic accountability by requiring lecturers to substantiate claimed improvements with evidence rather than intention, while stakeholder engagement and programme-level governance structures, such as dedicated CQI committees and standardised CTL templates, further enhanced the traceability and sustainability of improvement actions. The study provides practical guidance on how academic institutions can strengthen OBE performance by improving CQI governance, formalising Verification of Effectiveness, and embedding Closing-the-Loop as a routine part of academic and programme-review processes rather than an ad hoc accreditation exercise.

continuous quality improvement, closing the loop, outcome-based education

1. Abdeljaber, H. A. M., & Ahmad, S. (2017). Program Outcomes Assessment Method for Multi-Academic Accreditation Bodies: Computer Science Program as a Case Study. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 12(5), 23. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v12i05.6410 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ahmad, N., & Qahmash, A. (2020). Implementing Fuzzy AHP and FUCOM to evaluate critical success factors for sustained academic quality assurance and ABET accreditation. PLoS ONE, 15(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239140 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ahmad, N., Salleh, K. M., & Zainal, N. F. A. (2023). Curriculum mapping as a tool for continuous quality improvement in outcome-based education. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 15(2), 45–57. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Ahmadi, G., Mohammadi, A., Asadzandi, S., Shah, M., & Mojtahedzadeh, R. (2023). What are the indicators of Student Engagement in Learning Management Systems? A Systematized Review of the Literature. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 24(1), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v24i1.6453 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Akdemir, N., Peterson, L. N., Campbell, C. M., & Scheele, F. (2020). Evaluation of continuous quality improvement in accreditation for medical education. BMC Medical Education, 20, 308. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02124-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Al-Masoud, N., Baumann, P., & Gates, A. (2020). Development And Implementation Of An Integrated Outcomes Based Assessment Plan For A New Engineering Program. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--4844 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Alderman, L. (2022). The Continuous Learning Framework: Applying accountability for widespread organisational change. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 22(4), 206–220. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x221120294 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Alias, A. H., Ibrahim, M. S., Bakar, Y. I. A., Daud, N., Anuar, W. M. F. F. W., & Ghani, A. S. A. (2026). Implementation of outcome (competency) based medical education: a scoping review of 30 years of evidence. Discover Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-01132-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Alkhatib, M. (2021). An Effective and Secure Quality Assurance System for a Computer Science Program. Computer Systems Science and Engineering, 41(3), 975–995. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. https://doi.org/10.32604/csse.2022.021398 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Alyasin, A., Nasser, R., Hajj, M. E., & Harb, H. (2023). Assessing Learning Outcomes in Higher Education: From Practice to Systematization. TEM Journal, 1593–1604. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. https://doi.org/10.18421/tem123-41 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Anandh, A. P., Sivabalan, P., Sivaram, A. R., Sharma, N., & Anita, S. (2025). Strategic implementation of CO-PO mapping in NBA assessments and accreditation processes: Outcome-based education. In Educational philosophy and sociological foundation of education (pp. 289–324). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-3587-1.ch012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Anderson, T. R., Serow, R. C., Demery, J., Zorowski, C. F., & Brawner, C. E. (2024). Closing The Loop: Using Qualitative Assessment In The Continuous Quality Improvement Of The Succeed Coalition. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--8093 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Attree, K. (2025). Stakeholder engagement in accreditation and quality assurance via the program advisory board: contributions and benefits. Quality Assurance in Education, 34(1), 70–85. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-04-2025-0112 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Baharudin, R. (2026). Correlation Between Students’ Entrance Exit Survey Results and their Program Outcome (PO) Scores. Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and Learning, 16(1), 1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajatel.vol16.1.1.2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Basir, N., Lian, O. C., Salmizi, J. M., & Shaharin, H. (2019). Assessment of outcome-based integrated design project. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(1), 77. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.541 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long‐term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600679050 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Brooks, C., Carroll, A., Gillies, R. M., & Hattie, J. (2019). A Matrix of Feedback. ˜The œAustralian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 14–32. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44n4.2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Buzzetto-More, N. A., & Alade, A. J. (2006). Best Practices in e-Assessment. Journal of Information Technology Education Research, 5, 251–269. https://doi.org/10.28945/246 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Carroll, C., Patterson, M., Wood, S., Booth, A., Rick, J., & Balain, S. (2007). A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 2(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-40 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Chowdhury, M. A., Chisty, K. K. S., Tushar, H., Ahmed, K. M. F., & Waliullah, S. S. A. (2023). Automating assessment and evaluation for a bachelor’s degree program. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 12(4), 2037. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v12i4.25479 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Damaj, I., Zaher, A. A., & Yousafzai, J. (2017). Assessment and Evaluation Framework with Successful Application in ABET Accreditation. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 7(3), 73. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v7i3.7262 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis : quality, productivity and competitive position. In Cambridge University Press eBooks. Cambridge University Press. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA03785832 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Derouich, M. (2025). Ensuring outcome-based curriculum coherence through systematic CLO–PLO alignment and feedback loops. Discover Education, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00915-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Elassy, N. (2015). The concepts of quality, quality assurance and quality enhancement. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(3), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-11-2012-0046 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Grapragasem, S., Krishnan, A., & Mansor, A. N. (2014). Current Trends in Malaysian Higher Education and the Effect on Education Policy and Practice: An Overview. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v3n1p85 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Hanh, N. D., Loan, V. Q., & Viet, N. M. (2020). Quality Framework of Higher Education in Vietnam, Malaysia and Nigeria. Higher Education Studies, 10(2), 133. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v10n2p133 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Hoare, A., Hondzel, C. D., Wagner, S. L., & Church, S. (2024). A course-based approach to conducting program review. Discover Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-023-00085-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Hogg, R. V., & Hogg, M. C. (1995). Continuous Quality Improvement in Higher Education. International Statistical Review, 63(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.2307/1403776 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Hu, J., & Tang, C. (2025). A developed Plan-Do-Check-Act and contextual teaching and learning model. IET Conference Proceedings., 2024(12), 912–915. https://doi.org/10.1049/icp.2024.3563 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Hussain, W., Spady, W. G., Khan, S. Z., Khawaja, B. A., Naqash, M. T., & Conner, L. (2021). Impact Evaluations of Engineering Programs Using ABET Student Outcomes. IEEE Access, 9, 46166–46190. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3066921 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Ibrahim, A., Nor, M. R. M., Ahmad, H., & Latiff, M. F. P. M. (2025). Reliability of Program Outcome Attainment Evaluation Based on Cumulative Model and Culminating Model Analysis. Jurnal Kejuruteraan, 37(1), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.17576/jkukm-2025-37(1)-39 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Ihsan, S. I., & Khalifa, O. O. (2011). Continuous quality improvement strategies in engineering curriculum. 3239–3240. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-144-12-3239 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Juran, J. M., Godfrey, A. B., Hoogstoel, R. E., & Schilling, E. G. (1999). Juran’s quality handbook. Virtual Defense Library (Ministerio de Defensa). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. https://bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es/BVMDefensa/es/consulta/registro.do?id=683527 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Jönsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Kadappa, V., Sirigeri, D. R., Vinjamuri, S., Narayanan, P., & Rajeshwari Devi, D. V. (2022). Assessment and attainment of student learning outcomes in outcome-based education for technical undergraduate programs. In Development of employability skills through pragmatic assessment of student learning outcomes (pp. 56–71). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-4210-4.ch004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Khan, I. A., Ahmad, A. R., Jabeur, N., & Mahdi, M. N. (2021). An artificial intelligence approach to monitor student performance and devise preventive measures. Smart Learning Environments, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00161-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Khan, I. H. (2019). A Unified Framework for Systematic Evaluation of ABET Student Outcomes and Program Educational Objectives. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 11(11), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2019.11.01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Kibira, D., Morris, K. C., & Kumaraguru, S. (2016). Methods and Tools for Performance Assurance of Smart Manufacturing Systems. Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 121, 287. https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.121.013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Kitto, K., Williams, C., & Alderman, L. (2018). Beyond Average: Contemporary statistical techniques for analysing student evaluations of teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(3), 338–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1506909 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Kushari, B., & Septiadi, L. (2022). A learning outcome assessment information system to facilitate Outcome-Based Education (OBE) implementation. Jurnal Pendidikan Teknologi Dan Kejuruan, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.21831/jptk.v28i2.42339 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Köse, E. (2025). Improving learning outcomes in engineering education with a closed-loop control system method. European Mechanical Science, 9(3), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.26701/ems.1733766 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Lamis, A. M. M., & Pisuena, J. S. (2026). Web-based program outcomes assessment and evaluation system with data analytics. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 29(3), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2026.29.3.0572 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Lawrence, J. E. (2023). The Application of Constructive Alignment Theory in Designing a Curriculum Unit in Information Systems. The Educational Review USA, 7(4), 471–482. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. https://doi.org/10.26855/er.2023.04.015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Liew, C. P., Puteh, M., Lim, L. L., Yu, L. J., Tan, J., Chor, W. T., & Tan, K. G. (2021). Evaluation of Engineering Students’ Learning Outcomes: Creating a Culture of Continuous Quality Improvement. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(15), 62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i15.23763 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Luangrangsee, P., & Ratsameemonthon, C. (2024). Assessing the Alignment between Expected Learning Outcomes and Student Achievement in Research for Learning Development at a Higher Education Institution in Songkhla Province, Thailand. Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences (PJLSS), 22(2). https://doi.org/10.57239/pjlss-2024-22.2.00361 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Mackh, B. M. (2023). Good Practices in Course Assessment. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 23(11). https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v23i11.6260 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Mahalingam, T. (2025). Program learning outcome assessment: a scalable framework for quality assurance in outcome-based education. Quality Assurance in Education, 34(2), 360–377. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-07-2025-0215 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Mahzari, M., Alnahedh, T., Ahmed, A. A., Rumyyan, A. A., Shaban, S., & Magzoub, M. (2023). Practical Guide to Undergraduate Medical Curriculum Alignment and Mapping. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 1001–1012. https://doi.org/10.2147/amep.s424815 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Marsafawy, H. E., Roy, R., & Ali, F. (2022). Measuring learning outcomes: bridging accreditation requirements and LMS functionalities. Quality Assurance in Education, 30(4), 555–570. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-11-2021-0186 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. McCallum, S., & Milner, M. (2020). The effectiveness of formative assessment: student views and staff reflections. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 1–16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1754761 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. McDuff, N., Tatam, J., Beacock, O. P., & Ross, F. (2018). Closing the attainment gap for students from black and minority ethnic backgrounds through institutional change. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 20(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.20.1.79 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. McNaught, C., & Chun, C. (2023). Supporting the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Hong Kong. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 17(1), 1–11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2023.17103 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Nash, R., Kelder, J., Williams, A. M., & Ellis, L. (2020). Quality Pursuit: an academic informed, evidence-based approach to Assurance of Learning. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.s1.10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Nicol, D., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Oakland, J. S. (2014). Total Quality Management and Operational Excellence. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315815725 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Otto, H., & Mandorli, F. (2024). Formative Feedback Improvement in MCAD Education: Supporting Knowledge-Driven Dormant Deficiency Detection and Analysis. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 652–672. https://doi.org/10.14733/cadaps.2025.652-672 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Ouyang, F., Wu, M., Zheng, L., Zhang, L., & Jiao, P. (2023). Integration of artificial intelligence performance prediction and learning analytics to improve student learning in online engineering course. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 4. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00372-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. O’Connell, B., Lange, P. D., Freeman, M., Hancock, P., Abraham, A., Howieson, B., & Watty, K. (2015). Does calibration reduce variability in the assessment of accounting learning outcomes? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 331–349. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1008398 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Pappas, E., & Kander, R. (2020). Sustainable Societies: The Sustainable Engineering Design Curriculum At James Madison University. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--3445 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Pereira, E., Nsair, S., Pereira, L. R., & Grant, K. A. (2024). Constructive alignment in a graduate-level project management course: an innovative framework using large language models. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00457-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Plessis, S. S. du, Otaki, F., Zaher, S., Zary, N., Inuwa, I. M., & Lakhtakia, R. (2021). Taking a Leap of Faith: A Study of Abruptly Transitioning an Undergraduate Medical Education Program to Distance-Learning Owing to the COVID-19 Pandemic. JMIR Medical Education, 7(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. https://doi.org/10.2196/27010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Pradhan, D. (2021). Effectiveness of Outcome Based Education (OBE) toward Empowering the Students Performance in an Engineering Course. Journal of Advances in Education and Philosophy, 5(2), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.36348/jaep.2021.v05i02.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. Praetorius, A.-K., & Charalambous, C. Y. (Eds.). (2023). Theorizing teaching: Current status and open issues. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25613-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Pulkkinen, K., Hanne, F. H., Lars, G., & Pinheiro, R. (2019). Reforms, Organizational Change and Performance in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11738-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Puzziferro, M., & Shelton, K. (2019). A MODEL FOR DEVELOPING HIGH-QUALITY ONLINE COURSES: INTEGRATING A SYSTEMS APPROACH WITH LEARNING THEORY. Online Learning, 12. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v12i3-4.1688 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. Qadir, J., Shafi, A., Al‐Fuqaha, A., Taha, A. M., Yau, K. A., Ponciano, J., Hussain, S., Imran, Muhammad, S. S., Rais, R. N. B., Rashid, M. N., & Tan, B. L. (2020, September 8). Outcome-based (Engineering) Education (OBE): International Accreditation Practices. 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--35020 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. Quality management systems. Requirements. (2015). https://doi.org/10.3403/30273524 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. Rahminawati, N., & Supriyadi, T. (2023). Implementing an Internal Quality Assurance System to Enhance Elementary School Education Quality. International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research, 22(4), 414–433. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.4.23 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

91. Rais, R. N. B., Rashid, M., Zakria, M., Hussain, S., Qadir, J., & Imran, M. A. (2021). Employing Industrial Quality Management Systems for Quality Assurance in Outcome-Based Engineering Education: A Review. Education Sciences, 11(2), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11020045 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. Ratim, S., Zakaria, R., Gisip, J., Ibrahim, N., & Jani, N. A. (2024). Evaluation of CDL- CQI monitoring mechanism in open distance learning (ODL) of materials science and technology course during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal on E-Learning and Higher Education, 19(2), 151–164. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. https://doi.org/10.24191/ijelhe.v19n2.19210 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

94. Ressler, S., & Lenox, T. (2016). Raising the Bar for Civil Engineering: Implications of the International Engineering Alliance Graduate Attribute Profiles. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.26035 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

95. Samuel, S., & Farrer, H. (2025). Integrating The PDCA Cycle for Continuous Improvement and Academic Quality Enhancement in Higher Education. Journal of Comparative & International Higher Education, 17(2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.32674/yzwgmy25 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

96. Sarker, N. N., Ketkar, M. A., & Akujuobi, C. M. (2022). Closing loop for continuous improvement. 2010 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2-370-38985 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

97. Shariff, M. S. M., & Isa, C. M. M. (2025). CONTINUAL QUALITY IMPROVEMENT CONTRIBUTING TO PROGRAMME LEARNING OUTCOMES IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING COURSE IN MALAYSIA. International Journal of Modern Education, 7(24), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.35631/ijmoe.724031 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

98. Shirk, J. (2020). Designing a Self-Paced Learning Experience to Support Learner Self-Regulation. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v9i1.29527 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

99. Sikander, T., Aziz, M. H., Ahmad, W., Hussain, S. M. A. M., & Jahanzaib, M. (2017). Continuous quality improvement (CQI) framework: A case of industrial engineering department. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science Engineering and Education, 5(1), 107–119. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

100. https://doi.org/10.5937/ijcrsee1701107s [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

101. Smith, K., Good, M. R., Sanchez, E. H., & Fulcher, K. H. (2015). Communication is Key: Unpacking “Use of Assessment Results to Improve Student Learning.” Research & Practice in Assessment, 10, 15–29. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1137955.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

102. Spencer, D., Riddle, M., & Knewstubb, B. (2011). Curriculum mapping to embed graduate capabilities. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 217–231. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

103. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.554387 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

104. Stirman, S. W., Kimberly, J. R., Cook, N., Calloway, A., Castro, F., & Charns, M. P. (2012). The sustainability of new programs and innovations: a review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implementation Science, 7(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-17 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

105. Stitt‐Bergh, M., Kinzie, J., & Fulcher, K. H. (2018). Refining an Approach to Assessment for Learning Improvement. IUScholarWorks Open (Indiana University), 13, 27–33. http://iu.tind.io/record/3094 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

106. Subheesh, N. P., & Sethy, S. S. (2020). Learning through Assessment and Feedback Practices: A Critical Review of Engineering Education Settings. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/114157 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

107. Tanjong, S. J., Razali, N. T., Andrew-Munot, M., Jong, R. P., Junaidi, E., & Jamali, A. (2020). Analyses on Programme Outcomes Measurements for Continuous Quality Improvement of an Undergraduate Engineering Programme. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 55(6). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

108. https://doi.org/10.35741/issn.0258-2724.55.6.6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

109. Temponi, C. (2005). Continuous improvement framework: implications for academia. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880510578632 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

110. Wardhani, O., & Laksono, P. W. (2026). Evaluating Risks in an Outcome-Based Education Assessment Information System: A Qualitative Case Study in Higher Education. Indonesian Journal of Education Research (IJoER), 7(3), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.37251/ijoer.v7i3.2705 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

111. Yang, F. (2024). Enhancing Course Evaluation with Achievement Pathways in Outcome-Based Education Frameworks. Education Science and Management, 2(1), 10–24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

112. https://doi.org/10.56578/esm020102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

113. Yong, C. Y., & Iderus, S. (2024). A Proposed Comprehensive Novel Model (CN-Model): To Drive Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) on Engineering Programme in Institution of Higher Learning. Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, 38(1), 48–63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

114. https://doi.org/10.37934/araset.38.1.4863 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

115. Zizka, L., McGunagle, D., & Clark, P. (2020). Sustainability in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) programs: Authentic engagement through a community-based approach. ArODES (HES-SO (Https://Www.Hes-so.Ch/)), 279, 123715. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123715 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Institutional Readiness for Digital Transformation in Engineering Education: A Systematic Literature Review