Disaggregating Student Achievement in Maintenance Planning, Scheduling and Control: A Retrospective Assessment Study

The aggregated grade hides the unevenness with which students develop the skills required by engineers in their professional careers. The purpose of this research is to determine how direct assessments of evidence show students' understanding of knowledge and applied program development, as well as their ability to communicate professionally in the Maintenance Planning, Scheduling and Control course of the Bachelor of Civil Engineering Technology (Asset Management) with Honours programme at UiTM Sarawak. A retrospective census of 18 anonymized student records from the March–July 2026 teaching session was constructed by combining records from two class worksheets in one workbook into one cohort. Assessment components were standardized to a 0–100% scale using the syllabus mapping. The mean scores were 90.06% for procedural knowledge, 67.33% for group project-based applied programme development and 84.78% for professional communication. The overall weighted mean score was 78.17%, and the difference between the reported knowledge and applied domain means was 22.73 percentage points. As there is no specified competency threshold, these comparisons are descriptive rather than evidence of formally defined attainment. Missing individual demonstrations and independent ratings limit validation of tool proficiency. Future assessment should integrate an analytic project rubric, individual verification and formative checkpoints. The study illustrates how competency-specific analysis can make quality-improvement priorities visible without attributing learning differences to any untested instructional cause

assessment alignment; asset management education; engineering competencies; graduate attributes; learning analytics; retrospective cohort

1. Atolagbe, B., & McNeil, S. (2023). Transportation Asset Management Decision Support Tools: Computational Complexity, Transparency, and Realism. Infrastructures, 8(10), 143. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures8100143 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Cantera, M. A., Arevalo, M.-J., García-Marina, V., & Alves-Castro, M. (2021). A Rubric to Assess and Improve Technical Writing in Undergraduate Engineering Courses. Education Sciences, 11(4), 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11040146 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Crossin, E., Richards, J. I., Dart, S., & Naswall, K. (2023). A taxonomy of common engineering activities and competencies. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 28(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2214454 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. El-Thalji, I. (2025). Boosting Active Learning Through a Gamified Flipped Classroom: A Retrospective Case Study in Higher Engineering Education. Education Sciences, 15(4), 430. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15040430 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Gamage, K. A. A., Jeyachandran, K., Dehideniya, S. C. P., Lambert, C. G., & Rennie, A. E. W. (2023). Online and Hybrid Teaching Effects on Graduate Attributes: Opportunity or Cause for Concern? Education Sciences, 13(2), 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020221 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Hanley, K. J. (2023). Group allocation based on peer feedback. European Journal of Engineering Education, 48(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2106191 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Oh, W., Cho, C., & Lee, M. (2023). Life Cycle Cost Method for Safe and Effective Infrastructure Asset Management. Buildings, 13(8), 1983. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13081983 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Rajabzadeh, A. R., Long, J., Saini, G., & Zeadin, M. (2022). Engineering Student Experiences of Group Work. Education Sciences, 12(5), 288. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050288 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ramírez De Dampierre, M., Gaya-López, M. C., & Lara-Bercial, P. J. (2024). Evaluation of the Implementation of Project-Based-Learning in Engineering Programs: A Review of the Literature. Education Sciences, 14(10), 1107. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101107 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Ravi, M. (2023). Evolving trends in student assessment in chemical engineering education. Education for Chemical Engineers, 45, 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2023.09.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Institutional Readiness for Digital Transformation in Engineering Education: A Systematic Literature Review
• Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Mechanisms Effectiveness of Closing-The-Loop (CTL) Processes on Subsequent Course Outcomes Attainment