Developing an industry‐inspired and engaging interdisciplinary unit for undergraduate engineering students: A depiction of the operations management unit at the University of Manchester

Engineering students hardly allocate equal level of engagement to their management units, even when such units are very complex or whether the teacher is from within or outside engineering disciplines, which often reduces student engagement as well as the accomplishments of the entire cohort. Although it is well‐established that the structure, format, and content of units' assessments play vital roles in how much university students interact with their units, there are compelling evidence for and against the efficacy of different assessment methods deployable by educators that teach management units. Therefore, the focus of this study is to ascertain the reason(s) for the subpar interest in management units by engineering students. Data was gathered using Fishbone diagrams (FBDs) that depicted possible root causes of the research question. In addition to data generation, the use of FBDs also enabled deeper understanding of continuous improvement and increased the response rates. Responses showed that “perception of engineering” and “nature of contents” were the most prominent root cause groups. Further observations depicted that the perception of engineering among the students is that of an entirely technical discipline, thereby making science, engineering, technology, and mathematics units the most important. Furthermore, several respondents underrated the contents of management units, due to insufficient alignment with emerging engineering concepts as well as their inadequate academic challenge. To examine the influence of the implemented changes to assessment method on students' achievements, the performance indicators of five different cohorts were compared, and the outcomes of the comparison depicted a consistent pattern of students' attainment. Furthermore, a students' scores match of >95% was observed between cohorts, which so far indicates consistency.


INTRODUCTION
Over the years, higher educational institutions (HEIs) in partnership with professional accreditation bodies have implemented various measures to ensure that engineering students are furnished with all necessary but composite skills (technical and managerial) that match the rapidly changing needs of modern industries. However, evidence continues to highlight a genuine lack of popularity and interest in interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary units among undergraduate engineering (UGE) students. 1 Interdisciplinary units within HEIs are often classified as auxiliary units that provide students with the opportunity to acquire additional knowledge and skills from outside their core areas of study. Interdisciplinary units allow students to harness knowledge from several disciplines to build cognitive developments that may be very difficult to attain via their core technical discipline alone. Due to the wide range of interdisciplinary units, this study will only concentrate on the management units delivered to engineering students, with particular focus on Operations Management. Therefore, the terms interdisciplinary, cross-disciplinary and management units within this study refer to the same thing and may be used interchangeably. Evidence has shown that virtually all HEIs are capable of developing graduate engineers that possess discipline-specific expertise, but employers have continued to emphasize the criticality of employing graduate engineers that also complement their core technical expertise with more generic skills sets. The study by Hoddinott and Young 2 highlights that modern day employers, value graduate engineers with fundamental management characteristics in team-working, creative thinking, problem solving and communication, in addition to their core technical engineering knowledge. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The most popular approach for providing complementary knowledge within typical undergraduate engineering (UGE) curriculums is by embedding interdisciplinary units. [11][12][13][14][15] At the University of Manchester, for instance, students pursuing mechanical, aerospace, and civil engineering (MACE) degrees take project management, operations management, legal issues, enterprise management, and engineering foresight courses from Years 1-4. However, research 16 shows that a sizable portion of UGEs do not view interdisciplinary units in the same way as their technical units because they find them dull, uninteresting, and unchallenging. For instance, the study by Friedman et al 16 revealed that UGEs studying social sciences and management units are more likely to miss classes than UGEs studying technical, mathematical, or laboratory-based units, which are only 4.8% more likely to miss classes. Less than 10% of students think management units are useful, but more than 41% think otherwise, according to a different study 1 that involved surveying UGEs at five UK universities. These figures support the unpopularity of such units among UGEs even more. The poor class attendance patterns among UGEs have also been linked to this lack of interest. In addition, Pulko and Parikh 1 argued that female UGEs are more likely to be interested in management units than male UGEs, but that because of their underrepresentation, their opinions are frequently overshadowed in high-level research reports.
The recent shift to online and blended learning (OBL) as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic has partially eroded avenues for traditional in-person modes of teaching and engagement with students in addition to pre-established perceptions resulting from the nature of the contents of management units. Therefore, UGE unit coordinators must first comprehend the specific deterrents in order to have any chance of improving students' learning experiences and inclusivity in interdisciplinary units through the now-dominant OBL. To do this, the current study takes into account operations management, one of MACE's largest and most diverse interdisciplinary unit cohorts (MACE30461). The research strategy used for this study is based on the use of the Fishbone diagram, a very dynamic tool for continuous improvement and failure analysis (also known as Ishikawa). Students in the chosen cohort were merely instructed to create their own Fishbone diagrams in accordance with the following research question: what do you think are the reasons for the poor interest in management units by undergraduate engineering students?
The study's remaining sections are organized as follows; Some of the key academic works on student engagement are presented in Section 2 along with their applicability to learning management systems from the perspectives of teaching, curriculum, and assessment. The research methodology used to gather data about students' perceptions of this core management unit is covered in Section 3 by using the root cause analysis techniques covered in the unit. The results are presented along with a discussion of their implications in Section 4. The method used to restructure the interdisciplinary MACE30461 unit is described in Section 5 from both the teaching and assessment perspectives. In order to comprehend the effects of the modifications that have been implemented on the performance and satisfaction of students, Section 6 provides information about student attainment, unit evaluation, and feedback. Section 7 brings everything to a close.
Additionally, it should be noted that the work presented here is a significant extension of earlier studies that were submitted to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers/International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, including considerations for developing an engaging management curriculum for UGE students during COVID-19 17 and innovative assessment frameworks for large UGE cohorts on management units. 18 (ASME IMECE 2022).

OVERVIEW OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Any undergraduate education program is built on the three pillars of curriculum, teaching, and assessment, so it follows that any comprehensive strategy for increasing student engagement must take into account each of these three pillars. The curriculum pillar is responsible for outlining the content and ensuring that it complies with industry standards. On the other hand, the teaching pillar is concerned with how the curriculum is delivered to make sure that all intended learning outcomes are met. Last but not least, the assessment pillar offers a way to gauge how much of the taught material the students have actually retained. Additionally, it offers indicators of the strength of the teaching and curriculum pillars. The curriculum and teaching pillars can therefore be seen as the quality assurance and quality control elements, respectively, if learning is thought of as a transformational process. The three pillars of education for simplification are outlined in detail in Figure 1 along with their key characteristics.

Curriculum and teaching
With regard to the equity of value provided for the amount of investment made in standard university degrees, HEIs have recently come under intense scrutiny, which has put the subject of student engagement in the spotlight. The sum of the time, energy, and resources that students and their HEIs devote to learning in order to improve the experience of students can be referred to as student engagement. 19,20 Academic research in this area is not particularly new, despite the fact that recent frameworks for higher education, like the teaching excellence framework (TEF), have further emphasized the importance of student engagement and experience. According to studies by Astin, 21 Feldman and Newcomb, 22 Sanford, 23 and Pace, 24 student engagement is crucial to college students' success. Connell and Wellborn 25 assert that because engagement has a strong positive correlation with a number of academic outcome parameters, it improves skills and the capacity to mentally adapt to the features of specific environments. It is interesting to note that due to the inherent complexity of the previously taught theories, students pursuing engineering degrees, where design, make, and test (DMT) activities are mandatory course requirements, are thought to benefit more from engagement. 26 Additionally, the learning requirements of contemporary UGEs go far beyond what can be adequately met by traditional teaching methods alone. With the current abundance of opensource information available on every subject, educators' roles should significantly go beyond the conventional and, regrettably, predominate method of information transmission. However, it is fair to say that they are still the predominant teaching strategies within most HEIs, especially when delivering management units that do not involve DMT activities, despite the abundance of evidence showing how an over-reliance on traditional classroom-based teaching modes erodes students' engagement and learning F I G U R E 1 A summary of the three main pillars of undergraduate education outcomes. [27][28][29] Studies by Hartley and Cameron 30 and MacManaway 31 and others have shown that most students have attention spans of about 10 min, and that most students only retain 20% of the information presented in lectures. Due to the combination of cutting-edge modeling/simulation technology, traditional lectures, and experimental rigs to deliver the majority of their core technical contents, UGEs are in a very unique position. The fact that they are accustomed to such hybridized approaches raises their expectations for the entirety of their study program, which is detrimental to management units that do not frequently use such delivery methods. Therefore, content and delivery methods must significantly emphasize applications rather than just instructions in order to reduce the disparities in interests in core technical and management units from UGEs.

Assessment
Engineering programs in the United Kingdom and the United States are ensured to create parameters and proofs that demonstrate the level to which program objectives have been to professional engineering bodies like Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) and Engineering Council through its affiliated professional institutions including Joint Board of Moderators (JBM), Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), Institution of Engineering Technology (IET), Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS), and so on. The assessment mechanisms used in this process are a fundamental and absolutely essential component. In particular for professionally accredited programs, HEIs are under constant pressure to increase the representativeness of their assessments across disciplines. The status of assessment as a systematic process for gauging the accomplishment of previously established intended learning outcomes (ILOs) set by HEIs is hardly ever contested, despite the fact that several earlier studies [32][33][34][35] have shown that there are very few generally accepted definitions of assessment in higher education. Due to the critical role, it plays in promoting learning and evaluating the achievement of specified ILOs, assessment is widely acknowledged as having a significant impact on UGE students' attitudes. 36 The results of assessments are also helpful for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of specific students as well as the cohort as a whole, which can guide future quality assurance initiatives. 37,38 However, the validity, representativeness, and reliability of the assessment are frequently positively correlated with the realization of the aforementioned merits of assessments. 38 A list of the common characteristics of good assessment practices is presented in Table 1. Due to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and the ongoing proliferation of advanced communication technologies (ACTs), the volume and variety of assessment methods that are available to HEIs have recently increased significantly. There are many academic resources available that already offer comprehensive instructions on how to develop assessments. As a result of their inherent advantages and disadvantages, particularly in terms of representativeness, reliability, impact on education, validity, acceptance, and deployment costs, it is also widely accepted that no single written assessment approach is all-inclusive. 39 As a result, this study will not focus on the fundamentals of all UGE assessments; instead, it will share real-world examples of how to implement the most common direct assessment types in interdisciplinary UGE units.
Assessments can be roughly categorized as formative or summative. The majority of the time, summative assessments are used to assess students' progress within a program, which in turn determines their final degree classifications and potential post-educational roles. This is possibly the reason summative evaluations are occasionally referred to as "feed TA B L E 1 Major attributes of good assessment practices for undergraduate engineering 33

Attribute Description
Measurable outcomes Clearly explained outcomes, with identifiable metrics that defines attainment.
Effective and meaningful Curriculum encompasses assessment and evidence should highlight possible issues related to outcomes.
Pragmatic and efficient Evidence should support decision-making. The efforts committed toward acquiring the required evidence should be commensurate with the value of assessment.
Systematic and continuous Typical assessment frameworks should integrate both formative and summative forms in a systematic manner and on a continuous basis.

Multidimensional
Outcomes should be evaluated through a combination of methods, and at various points of study. Program and unit assessment methodology should continuously evolve on the basis of lessons learned from previous assessments.

Resourced
Ample time should be allocated to marking, data acquisition, data collation, data analysis and interpretation. out" mechanisms used by HEIs and professional regulatory bodies to gauge the effectiveness of engineering programs across the globe. However, the purpose of formative assessments is to provide students with feedback so that their learning can be improved. Although the importance of both assessment methods has never been in question, different disciplines have implemented them differently in terms of percentages. In HEIs, for instance, traditional management teaching methods frequently use pertinent case studies to embed learning, which is then assessed via individual essays in the form of coursework and/or end-of-semester exams. Essay-style summative assessments are renowned for striking a good balance between simplicity of design and capacity to delve deeply into the subject matter that teachers regard as most important. The timing of these traditional summative exams, which is typically at the end of the semester, and the expanding numbers of engineering cohorts in HEIs make it difficult for teachers to consistently grade submitted reports and/or exam scripts and offer insightful feedback. Whether or not the academics are from the same discipline as the students, the teaching and assessment of interdisciplinary units present a number of unique challenges. 40 Shaw-Mellors and Koornhof, 41 Allen, 42 and Morris 43 found that the challenges of maintaining a balance across multiple disciplinary facets, poor student engagement, interest, and motivation, and knowledge structure fragmentation are the main causes of the frustrations experienced during the delivery and assessment of interdisciplinary units. The inclusivity of HEIs' direct assessment methods must be sufficiently improved in order to address the aforementioned instructional challenges and improve the integration of knowledge and skills that UGE students learn from interdisciplinary units. The submissions of students are evaluated using direct assessment techniques for interdisciplinary UGE units, according to Spurlin et al, 33 and an educator can choose from a variety of strategies, including multiple choice questions (MCQs), short answer tests (SATs), essay tests, cases, projects, presentations, and simulations. 44 The assessment of interdisciplinary units, however, still heavily relies on conventional essay-type questions, despite the maturity of ACTs, which is unsustainable given the current growth rates of typical UGE cohorts. It would also be logical to first determine whether there is a variation in the validity and reliability of the various UGE assessment types, with a focus on MCQs and essays since they are the most common since the primary goal of an assessment is to determine the adequacy of learning.
There are a number of justifications for and against using MCQs or open-ended essay questions as the primary form of evaluation in the literature. For instance, Bridgeman 45 argued that while specific questions on an MCQ-only exam might be deemed unreliable due to the possibility of guesswork, overall MCQ-only exams are more reliable than fewer specifically targeted essay questions because they cover more unit content and require less time to complete. Hassmen and Hunt 46 defended the guesswork in addition to supporting Bridgeman's 45 observations and categorizing it as a partial reflection of pertinent unit content. The time and consistency issues with grading essay-only exams for large cohorts are a very vocal and persistent criticism. Academics are more forgiving when grading handwritten answers, according to Powers et al, 47 and they occasionally reward students for providing answers that have nothing to do with the subject matter being evaluated. Other studies 45,48,49 have contrasted the results of MCQ-only and essay-only assessments and claimed that it was difficult to distinguish the attainment of cohorts based on the assessment types, implying that both assessment types measured the same things. Due to the fact that similar results can be achieved with MCQ-only assessments, these findings raised the crucial question of whether the advantages of essay-only assessments for large UGE cohorts are worth the time and effort invested in their processing. 48,49 Contrarily, the studies by Thissen et al, 50 Becker and Johnston, 51 and Drissen and van der Leuten 52 showed that there is insufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that the MCQ-only and essay-only assessments measure the same dimensions of knowledge. Since such fusions will enable the strengths of one approach to make up for the weaknesses of another, the mixed evidence presented by the reviewed studies clearly highlights that a hybrid approach to assessment could significantly enhance the overall robustness, representativeness, reliability, validity, and cost-effectiveness of UGE assessments. Essays, for instance, can be used to assess creativity, 49 whereas MCQs can be used to assess lower-level learning, which requires recalling specific information dispersed throughout various aspects of the taught material. 53 Therefore, the aforementioned constraints offer compelling reasons to re-evaluate both the viability and representativeness of traditional approaches to assessment and feedback used in the interdisciplinary (particularly management-related) units offered to undergraduate engineering (UGE) students.

EXTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE MECHANISMS FOR HEI UNITS AND PROGRAMS
Although individual HEIs have well-established processes and procedures for ensuring that the prescribed ILOs for their units and programs are accurately delivered (including internal peer assessments, buddy checks, reading panels and reviews by external examiners with proven expertise in similar fields). However, to assure students (prospective and existing) and other stakeholders that HEIs can offer what they advertise, there are needs for external quality assurance mechanisms (EQAM) which are independent. One of the most established mechanisms for achieving EQAM is via accreditation and industrial advisory board (IABs). Accreditation can be broadly described as a confirmation of the appropriateness of an institution, program or unit. Institutional accreditation assesses the proficiency of an institution to produce graduates that meet the minimum academic and/or professional standards stipulated for that level education. By using Europe as a case example, institutional accreditation is usually undertaken by national bodies or agencies, while it is undertaken by non-governmental voluntary organizations in the United States. The focus of program accreditation in the United Kingdom and United States is very similar, in the sense that it emphasizes professional aspects of the program. 54 Degree accreditation started in the 1960s and since most HEIs within the UK offer engineering, the professional engineering institutions on behalf of the Engineering Council UK (ECUK) ensures that voice of the profession is adequately echoed. The primary mandate of the ECUK is to develop and implement standards for engineering education so as to guarantee that suitably qualified candidates are admitted into the chartered engineers (CEng), incorporated engineers (IEng) and engineering technicians (EngTech) registers. 55 In contrast, program accreditation in some Eastern European countries especially Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia are fundamentally designed to emphasize academic rather than professional aspects of education. 56

Accreditation process and procedures
Accreditation comprises of a set of activities that are aimed at collecting and collating information that enable professional bodies such as ECUK to determine whether a unit, program or institution should retain their accreditation. The most common mechanisms for gathering accreditation information include periodic audits, external examination, document analysis, peer visits, special panels, inspections, and so on. It is the responsibility of the applicants to provide evidence that prove the proficiency of their programs against stated standards. As an example, the UK accreditation process for engineering programs involve the following activities: • Submission of an application by the engineering department to the relevant professional institution • Appraisal by a specially enacted committee of academics • Visit to the university and department

The purpose of EQAM within HEIs
According to a multi-national study conducted by Fraser, 57 which was based on the four components model originally proposed by Van Vught and Westerheijen, 58 the responses from participants of 24 European countries (including France, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Spain, United Kingdom, Turkey, Sweden, Netherlands, etc.) revealed that the most crucial purpose of EQAM are 59 to: • Support HEIs to identify shortfalls within their current offerings as well as help implement mitigation strategies.
• Ensure that HEIs are accountable to stakeholders • Ensure that the operations of HEIs continue to align with most recent legislations • Ensure that students and potential employers are aware of educational standards • Ensure that governments are provided with the most recent and relevant guidance to support funding decisions

Comparing EQAM for HEIs
Although existing body of knowledge depicts that there is a universal agreement that EQAM especially through accreditation is useful. However, studies 59 also illustrate that there are still areas of converges and divergence across various regions and in some cases countries. This is perhaps why the comparative study such as that conducted by Harman 60 on Western Europe, Taiwan, United States, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Japan, Hong Kong, China, Columbia, Australia, Korea, Thailand and Philippines, which clearly outlines the fundamental features that would consistently ease the determination of areas of convergence and divergence among countries is vital. The study proposed the following core attributes: • Purpose • the existence of a national and independent body that manages EQAM within institutions. For instance, this role is performed by ECUK for engineering programs across UK HEIs.
• EQAM process should emphasize self-assessment • External peer-review of the self-assessment through site visit (where applicable) • Publicly available reports on the outcomes of the routine EQAM process

• No established link(s) between EQAM outcomes and HEIs funding
The aforementioned commonalities help minimize quality divides among professional institutions that are domiciled in different countries and regions, which in turn fosters an environment whereby qualifications from one country or region are acceptable in others. For instance, Jack Levy 55 mentioned that one of the primary functions of the International Committee of the Engineering Council (ICEC) is to develop and implement agreements with other countries on the recognition of engineering qualifications that originate from the United Kingdom, although there might be additional requirements from individual professional engineering bodies. Based on this premise, the United Kingdom is generally involved with two main agreements-"European Engineer (EurIng)" title which is awarded by the Federation of European National Engineering Associations (FEANI) that operates in most of the European Union countries and United Kingdom, while the "Washington Accord" which operates in fewer countries but including Australia, South Africa, Canada, Hong Kong, United States, New Zealand and United Kingdom.

Areas of divergence
Despite the vast areas of convergence, significant divergence points still exist in the implementation of EQAM for HEIs across regions and countries. Vital disparities were highlighted by the Gandolfi and Von Euw 61 in their survey of 590 HEIs in Europe. The study 61 depicted lack of clear, concise and universally established framework for implementing EQAM. Although regions such as the Nordic have a somewhat established assessment systems that encompass self-assessment and external peer reviews, however, the results generated are separately reported to ministries that do not have any direct steering responsibilities. 62 Additionally, it was shown that EQAM activities are considered relevant for external purposes in Norway and for internal in Sweden. 63 Therefore, the frameworks are often tuned to specifically align with the country's HEI governing strategy. Turner et al 63 also highlighted some differences between the EQAM frameworks for HEIs in Japan and United Kingdom, despite establishing similar processes through institutions such as National Institution for Academic Degrees (NIAD) and UK Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA) in the 19th century. However, unlike CNAA, NIAD does not consider itself as a HEI partner, which significantly impeded the attainment of autonomy among HEIs in Japan. Similarly, Mok 64 compared the impacts of borrowed EQAM strategies among Hong Kong and Singapore. In the study, 64 it was shown that the Hong Kong model that was imported from the United Kingdom only led HEIs toward becoming managerial, while the EQAM framework that was implemented in Singapore was primarily used to increase the country's competitiveness within regional markets.

Description of the case study and participants
The study looked into the operations management unit (MACE30461), which is taught to Year

Research instrument and data
Data for this study were collected from five different cohorts between 2017/2018 and 2021/2022. 962 of the approximately 1758 students who were invited to participate in the data collection exercise over the course of the 5 years did so (i.e., a response rate of about 55%; see Table 2 for a breakdown of the students by cohorts). The data collection window was set to 8 weeks for each cohort (from Lecture Week 8 until the end of Semester 1 examinations). The research question was always introduced in Week 8 of the first semester, right after the students had learned about operations management's continuous improvement and failure analysis tools (including Fishbone diagrams). Students were simply instructed to create Fishbone diagrams (FBDs) for this study using what they believed to be the main factors causing the research question in Section 1. Students were free to participate in the exercise because all FBDs were completely anonymous and did not affect their unit grades. Alternative names for FBDs include Ishikawa or cause-and-effect diagrams. FBDs are effective tools for continuous improvement that offer visual representations of the categorization of all potential sources of issues in a system or phenomenon under study. FBDs are typically categorized as brainstorming tools in general. FBDs assist in accurately and systematically identifying the root causes of any studied problem, which saves time and resources because there may be an infinite number of potential causes. Additionally, since this has been found to be helpful for fostering learning and engagement during such processes, 65-67 its visual attribute makes it particularly useful for facilitating teaching-related data collection processes. Due to the aforementioned purposes it served, this data collection method was thought to be appropriate. It not only gives the necessary information on how UGEs view management units, but it also encourages student TA B L E 2 5

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF OUTCOMES
962 of the roughly 1792 UGEs that were registered on this unit during the 5-year period taken into account for the study returned their answers to the exercise. Since it would be impossible to present all of the unique FBDs created by each student, the unified FBD depicted in Figure 2 was built using all of the discovered root causes (RCs). The key RCs that were highlighted by each student individually were all taken out and combined to create this summary. The assignment asked students to divide their RCs into five major categories (M1-M5). The contexts that students provided for their perceived RCs are also detailed in Table 3. Since these are applicable to most processes, the same categories of the 5Ms described in relation to the operations management process described in the teaching materials were kept for the data collection exercise.
The RCs were ranked according to appearance and response volume as shown in Figure 3 to make it simple to identify the major contributors. Additionally, related RCs were combined to create the seven root cause groups (RCGs) depicted in Table 4 and Figure 4. The exercise showed that the perception of engineering and the nature of the contents have the

M1
Manpower Academics, graduate teaching assistants, professional support staff, etc. biggest effects on the declining popularity of operations management among most UGEs. Some of the most common categories of student comments include the following:

M2
• I do not see the connection between this unit and engineering (RC4) • The fundamental definition of engineering does not reflect management (RC18) • I do not see how this unit will help me in the future (RC24) • We do not need operations management to understand how to manage our engineering activities (RC25) • This unit should be restricted to the business schools (RC26) • The unit content is too management heavy (RC9) • The unit is too theoretical -lacks hands-on elements such as experiments or computer-based laboratories (RC12) The overwhelming majority of UGE students still believe that engineering programs should be strictly technical, as is evident by the dominance of RCG1 (perception of engineering) and its associated RCs. For many years, there has been debate about the effects of these narratives on the advancement of the engineering discipline. For instance, The National Academy of Engineering's 2008 summer report, "Changing the Conversation," sought to change the public's perception of engineering from one that is blatantly complex and mathematically challenging to one that is focused on improving lives and having a positive social impact. 72 The majority of the messages that professional engineers and faculty members convey to the general public through outreach initiatives are frequently created to only emphasize the correlation between engineering and particular qualities, primarily mathematical and scientific prowess, the report also found. As a result, previously disseminated information about engineering leaves out other very important management-based skills like teamwork, communication, planning, and innovation. 72 In a study that is closely related to this one, Pawley 73 conducted interviews with 10 faculty members from HEI and found that there are three common narratives about the engineering discipline. The first story connects applied science and mathematics to engineering. The third narrative connects engineering to creating or constructing highly technical things, while the second narrative links engineering to problem-solving. The narratives are still heavily weighted toward technicality and STEM, with no mention of general and/or managerial skills, more than 10 years after Pawley's 73 study. As part of their studies into the philosophy of engineering, researchers like Bucciarelli, 74 Koen, 75 and Vincenti 76 have also expressed similar viewpoints.

Teaching through online and blended learning
Online and blended learning (OBL) can benefit both HEIs and students significantly, depending on the deployment quality and student support systems. Since learning can be done without traveling to and from study locations, OBL may offer students more affordable, secure, and flexible study options. This is especially true now that there is so much skepticism about physical contact due to highly contagious diseases like the recent Covid-19 pandemic. Since the physical strain on facilities is significantly reduced, OBL offers HEIs significant operational cost-saving opportunities (including lighting, cleaning, IT equipment, consumables, manpower, insurance, etc.). Additionally, there are fewer limitations on the number of students who can enroll in programs, which improves profitability. However, the narrative must sufficiently emphasize OBL's alignment with the spread of advanced technology, especially the well-established track record of incorporating PC-based simulations into such disciplines, in order for technical disciplines like engineering to embrace OBL. OBL has been defined by several studies 77-81 as the blending of conventional in-person instruction with carefully chosen online learning activities. Similar to this, Ozadowicz 81 contends that the success of a typical OBL framework depends on the degree to which it incorporates both synchronous (course materials that are delivered in real-time) and asynchronous learning (course materials that can be studied at the learner's convenience to either serve as a precursor or re-enforcement to in-person contents). Along with the previously mentioned standard advantages of OBL, it also improves inclusivity in education. For instance, RCGs 6 and 7 in Table 4 respectively refer to "class size & nervousness" and "personal conflict," which may have significant effects on the affected students' mental health. How to juggle topics or subject areas that are interesting, engaging, but at the same time intellectually challenging and capable of preparing graduate engineers to meet future industrial challenges is one of the most difficult problems facing UGE educators when creating program or unit contents. A strong UGE program must offer a good balance between fundamental STEM skills and non-technical skills. The information in MACE30461 was compiled from a variety of sources in order to achieve the aforementioned program characteristics. In addition to the core subject matter, specific additional contents were incorporated based on interactions with working industrial engineers and professional organizations that accredit the various UGE streams. The delivery structure of the rebranded MACE30461 is shown in Table 5, including delivery weeks, teaching blocks, topics, ILOs, types of assessments, and assessment periods. The structure that is being presented was creatively put together to incorporate a variety of technical (such as Weeks 6, 7, 11, and 12) and management/general (such as Weeks 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10) topics in order to address the two most important RCGs (i.e., RCGs 1 and 2) listed in Table 4. Based on information gained from actual experiences during the industrial interactions of Weeks 4 and 9, the technical contents of the unit primarily deal with the design and construction of process systems. The students can also learn about operations failures through the industrial interactions (Week 4 for an operations process that generates tangible products like oil and gas, and Week 9 for an industrial process that generates services like a maintenance consultancy), which they then use to build their fault trees and FBDs, which they then transform into reliability block diagrams (including the mathematical estimations of the probabilities of failures). It is also appropriate to point out that the design and delivery of the majority of technical UGE units follow modern trends in gamification and industrial engineering. For instance, using building information modeling (BIM) for civil engineering designs or particle image velocimetry (PIV) principles to demonstrate vortex pair in wind tunnels for aerospace units or using 3D printers to design and produce extremely intricate machine parts for mechanical units or designing robotic control systems based on LabView for mechanical, aerospace, civil, and electrical engineering units have all been shown to be effective at increasing engagement. Immersive technology is now being used more frequently to simulate laboratory and engineering workshop tasks like welding, milling, turning on a lathe, and benchwork, which are very similar to the architectural designs of the majority of the computer games that the majority of today's students play off campus. [77][78][79] Concepts of "digital twin and industry 4.0" were incorporated into MACE30461 in order to provide a comparable gamification experience. In this unit, students use discrete event simulation principles (Weeks 7-12) to replicate and optimize a real-world manufacturing process.

Multi-stage and multi-dimensional assessment approach
A hybrid of techniques that will take place at various points throughout the semester is herein proposed as an alternative to the previous single stage (end of semester), essay-only, heavy weight assessment approach. Although the studies by Hernandez 82 and Harland et al 83 stated that such anticipated benefits of continuous assessment must also be treated with caution, it is anticipated that the continuous assessment element of the proposed hybrid approach will improve student engagement. The resulting hybrid approach is divided into four main categories: light weight collaborative (LWC), MOCK zero weight independent (MZWI), heavy weight independent (HWI), and short zero weight independent (SZWI) assessments. In order to promote gradual but sustained student engagement with the course and engagement with their peers, light and zero weight assessments are used on a regular basis. By encouraging systematic investigation of difficult concepts, this also broadens learning. The weights, frequencies, and descriptions of the four assessment components of the hybrid approach are summarized in Table 6. The university's Blackboard learning management system is used to create, distribute, and grade all four classes of assessments (BBLMS).

Short zero weight independent assessment
Here, 11 SZWI assessments are used, each of which uses MCQs based on the BBLMS to test the material from a single week. Tables 5 and 6 indicate that SZWI-6 and SZWI-11 will cover "Process Thinking and Operations Performance (Week 6 content) and Continuous Improvement in Operations (Week 11 content)," respectively. SZWI do not count toward the final unit grade, but because of how closely they mirror weighted examination timing, structure, and pattern, they are still beneficial and risk-free for students with regards to preparation. Additionally, there are no restrictions on the quantity of attempts that students make. Each of the 11 tests consists of a combination of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and multiple-answer questions (MCAs). MCQs have a single correct answer among multiple options, while MCAs have more than one correct answer among the options provided. To discourage guessing, full marks are awarded for MCQs if only the correct answer is selected. Similarly, students obtain full marks for MCAs only if all the correct answers related to a question are selected. There is no way to go back and forth between the questions and answers because of their significant randomization. After submitting a test attempt, feedback on both the right and wrong answers is given immediately.

MOCK zero weight independent assessment
The MZWI assessment, like SZWI, has no bearing on the final unit grade. However, unlike SZWI, which is incremental in nature, MZWI only deploys once at the conclusion of Week 12's revision. It also covers every facet of the unit and accurately replicates the heavy weight individual (HWI) assessment given at the end of the semester. MZWI has a total of 60 MCQs (multiple choice and multiple answers), 20 of which are from an industrial operations case study and are worth three points each, while the remaining 40 questions are from other areas of the taught material and are worth one F I G U R E 5 Typical operations systems model point each. 110 min are allotted for the assessment, including 15 min for reading the case study and an additional 5 min for the assessment instructions. Based on numerous simulations of more than 2 years' worth of test completion times that were made available by BBLMS, the assessment duration was established. Students with registered special learning requirements take the assessment under the conditions outlined in their university-approved learning plans, which may include various iterations of additional time allotments, rest breaks, isolated assessment locations, or combinations of various approaches. This is done to ensure compliance with the equality, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility (EDIA) guidelines. Students are also given the schematic diagram of a typical operations process shown in Figure 4 in addition to the industrial case study. The next step is for students to analyze and match certain highlighted statements from the case study to the proper letters in the figure. For instance, "7 days delivery lead time" and "turning fasteners using a lathe" highlighted in the following sample extracts from the case study are respectively related to the sections labeled "U" and "Z" in Figure 5. 84 Granby limited is a company that manufactures various types of fasteners at two major manufacturing sites in the North West of England. The company has 5 major departments -Human Resources, Finance, Operations, Sales and Information Technology. Granby limited employs 178 people and has recorded an annual turnover of approximately £37m over the last 5 financial years.
These fasteners are made from stainless steel, titanium alloy and glass fibre reinforced polymer. Fasteners are either threaded bolts or threaded nuts. The following sizes are manufactured M6 M8 M10 M12 M14 M16 M18 M20 and M25. Their manufacturing process mainly involves turning fasteners using a lathe from 3m bar stock down to the required size. Granby Limited is considered top of their class due to their Just-in-Time raw materials policy, 5-year 4-star rating in customer satisfaction, 24-hour response time to customer queries and a throughput rate of 1 tonne of fasteners per week.

F I G U R E 6 Fault tree of root causes of poor customer satisfaction assessment question
Toughplast Limited is based in Camelot and supplies polymers, with an average of 7 days delivery lead time from order request to reception of stock at the warehouse of Granby Limited supply polymers. Polymers typically have a 6-9 weeks turnover but new orders are initiated after the 8 th week.
Students are also required to 40 questions in the MZWI assessment that relate to various aspects of the content that were not covered in the case study section. Naturally, there will be a mix of mathematical, analytical, definitional, graphic interpretation, graph analysis, multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and so on, questions. Figure 6 shows an illustration of an analytical task that also calls for graphical interpretation. A typical question regarding Figure 6 would be phrased as follows: If the fault tree shown in Figure 6 represents the outcomes of a root cause failure investigation for an industrial operations process for manufacturing machine components, select the equivalent reliability block diagram from Figure 7 that would simplify the identification of the most critical root causes.

6.2.3
Light weight collaborative assessment Good teamwork is essential to managing real-world industrial engineering operations successfully, just like it is in most other disciplines. That is why it is a primary goal of this LWC assessment. This group coursework, which has the feel of a mini-project, combines essay-style questions with the creation and analysis of logic diagrams, and discrete events simulation (DES) using the Siemens PLM Tecnomatix software, process optimization, and MCDA. Industrial Management for Process Availability, Cost-effectiveness & Throughput (IMPACT) is the name of the entire LWC group project, which accounts for 20% of the overall unit mark. It is usually introduced during the introductory lecture in Week 1, and by the end of Week 8, all groups must electronically submit their final reports and two models (the baseline and optimized models). The first step in the assessment design is to create empty groups in the BBLMS unit space designated for MACE30461. There were 338 and 325 students on MACE30461 in the academic years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, respectively, so 70 empty groups (averaging five students per group) were made. Students were asked to use the "self assign" feature in the group creation tab of BBLMS to join the groups of their choice in order to increase productivity and seamless engagement F I G U R E 7 Equivalent reliability block diagrams options for the fault tree question in Figure 5 between group members. The group formation phase had a 2-week deadline, after which unallocated students would be automatically placed in incomplete groups. A baseline digital twin of a real-world cement manufacturing operation was created as part of the first of three parts of the LWC's actual tasks, which are shown in Figure 8. The reason a cement operation was chosen for this unit is that it provides an excellent set of examples for the three engineering disciplines (mechanical, aerospace, and civil engineering). In order for cement materials to be pneumatically transported across crucial process equipment like mills, bag houses, cyclone separators, and kilns, plant operators, technicians, and engineers must have a solid understanding of aerodynamics. This story nicely fits the purview of students studying aerospace engineering. Cement is a common building material, which makes it a good illustration for students of civil engineering. For mechanical engineering students, a good narrative is the mechanical design and maintenance of the physical industrial assets (PIA) to ensure reliability. The baseline model developed in Part 1 must be optimized in Part 2, based on process availability, cost-effectiveness, and throughput. The project report is put together in Part 3 with careful attention to key concepts in operations management, particularly MCDA and continuous improvement through bottleneck analysis, root cause failure analysis, environmental sustainability, and so on. The following six topics should be completely covered by all groups within their reports: Students are provided with a thorough, step-by-step coursework manual that directs them as they create their baseline models. With enough graduate teaching assistants, the baseline model is also developed over three separate, three-hour computer lab support sessions (GTAs). The GTAs' responsibility is to support the general idea of modeling through DES, not to assist in the model's development. Following the creation of the baseline model, each group will proceed to develop their optimized versions based on rigid boundary conditions. For instance, the budget is limited to £750 k and can only be F I G U R E 8 Process diagram of the cement manufacturing process case study used for significant PIAs like kilns, mills, silos, transportation, etc. This part of the group work, which makes up Element 1, should be completed cooperatively by all group members. Elements 2 through 6 are equally weighted in order to improve even workload distribution and engagement, making it relatively simple to assign tasks to specific group members. A group's optimized model is shown in a screenshot in Figure 9, and the parameters for both their baseline and optimized models are shown in Table 7.

6.2.4
Heavy weight independent assessment The format and frequency of the HWI assessment are very similar to those of the MZWI assessment, but HWI accounts for a sizeable portion (80%) of the overall unit mark while MZWI does not. In fact, the main purpose of implementing MZWI at the very end of the semester is to familiarize students with the HWI format, in addition to encouraging them to engage with unit content. Despite the fact that the HWI assessment is digitally deployed and managed, all students are required to take it on campus, in specific university computer clusters, and under full invigilation, which prevents collusion, contract cheating, and collaboration. The case study portion of the HWI assessment is designed to effectively simulate real-world industrial scenarios in which an operations consultant is hired to determine the causes of poor performance in a typical engineering operation during the Covid-19 pandemic (or under similar restrictions). To assist these F I G U R E 9 Example of an optimized cement manufacturing process model for one of the student's groups consultants' investigations, all operational documents relevant to the situation would be made available to them. Additionally, even though the questions for MZWI and HWI are completely different, the case studies are similar, allowing students to concentrate on extracting and analyzing the information that has been highlighted rather than simply trying to comprehend a 4-page case study in 110 min. The BBLMS settings allowed for backtracking and the questions were not randomly generated because this was an in-person, on-campus, and fully supervised exam. This was especially important for the unit coordinators and invigilators when students questioned specific tasks during the exam.

STUDENT ATTAINMENT, UNIT EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK
The reorganized assessment plan for MACE30461 has now been used for two academic years in a row (2020-2021 and 2021-2022). To determine the effects of the implemented changes, the comparisons of student achievement for various cohorts are detailed in Figures 10 and 11 and Table 8, respectively. The initial generation of representative measures of normal achievement, particularly average marks and standard deviation over a range of academic sessions, used a number of data sources. Due to unusual student performance, these data points then allowed for the generation of the depicted scatter plots, which serve as a significant trigger for whether the unit will be moderated upwards or downwards. The thresholds for mark moderation are 57.5% (if the cohort average is below 57.5%, upward moderations are taken into account for the cohort as a whole) and 72.5% (if the cohort average is above 72.5%, downward moderations are taken into account for the cohort as a whole). The student attainments for the 5 years (including the two academic sessions when the described modifications were introduced) are very consistent, and no moderation has ever been needed, according to the common statistical indicators (primarily mean and standard deviation) presented in Table 8. Additionally, comparisons between different MACE30461 cohorts also resulted in a grades match of >95% (319 matched grades from roughly 332 population between the academic years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022). Students are given the chance to complete a set of unit evaluation questionnaires (UEQs) for each unit at the conclusion of the 12 teaching weeks for each semester, but before exams. The fundamental goal of the UEQ is to gauge how satisfied students are with each of the courses they took that semester. For academics to fully comprehend how novel approaches to unit delivery affect students, the results of such surveys are also absolutely essential. Expectancy violation theory states that regardless of how new teaching or assessment methods affect students' learning, they are very likely to express dissatisfaction with them. 85,86 However, the inclusion of the MZWI, which replicates the HWI and accounts for 80% of the overall module marks, effectively mitigated such potential drawbacks. The students' free text comments and scores were noticeably more favorable than in previous years. Examples of student free text comments are provided below: • Regular linking of coursework to industry • It's good to have a mock MCQs exam.
• Practical knowledge was applied to the content, which helped with the understanding. The weekly and in-class MCQ quizzes helped, especially for the mock test at the end.
• Very good at explaining concept and how they are applicable to real world scenarios • Great communication with students and helpful feedback and answers to student questions Despite the fact that the cohorts' attainment levels are depicted as comparable by the descriptive statistical data (primarily mean and standard deviation) in Table 8, it is also important to know whether or not a statistically significant   87 It was determined that a non-parametric approach, such as the Wilcoxon signed-rank test 88 was preferred here because the cohort sizes are unequal and continuous, in order to lessen the impact of unequal variances. As is typical in social science and educational research, 88-90 the critical alpha and confidence interval levels were set at 0.05 and 0.95, respectively. Consequently, the null hypothesis that follows was put forth for testing: H 0 : The median of differences between Cohort1 and Cohort2 equals 0.
The Wilcoxon signed-rank test results are shown in Figure 12, where it can be seen that there are no ties between the MACE30461 cohorts that were taken into consideration ( Figure 12C). Test also yielded test statistics of 25,520, 1797.822 standard errors, −1.738 standardized test statistics, and 0.082 asymptotic significance (two-sided test). These presumptions led to the decision to keep the stated null hypothesis.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
Most HEIs have proven over time that they are adept at producing graduate engineers with the necessary technical skills for the industry. But today's industrial operations demand multi-skilled graduates with adequate managerial skills. Unfortunately, research has shown that undergraduate engineering students do not give their management units the same level of engagement, regardless of the complexity of the units or whether the academic leading them is from their discipline. This has an impact on student engagement and the cohorts' overall achievement levels. There are very strong arguments for and against the proficiencies of the various types of assessments available to educators delivering management units to undergraduate engineering students, despite the fact that it is widely acknowledged that the structure, format, and content of assessments significantly influence the level of engagement that university students have with their units (UGEs). So, using a case study, this study looked into the underlying reasons for UGEs' low levels of engagement in management units. The article also discusses some of the most important factors to take into account when creating an engaging assessment framework for an interdisciplinary unit that is taught to a sizable cohort of UGEs. In this study, the Operations Management unit (MACE30461) for third-year engineering students from various disciplines is the interdisciplinary unit under investigation. The method used to collect the data was interactive and based on each of the participants' voluntary and anonymous creation of FBDs that represented the research question's RCs. In addition to enhancing comprehension of FBDs and continuous improvement in general, the method increased response rates over the course of the study's 5-year duration. A total of 952 FBDs, or about 55% of the 1758 population, were returned. To avoid having to present hundreds of separate FBDs, related RCs were combined to form RCGs, and then a single, unified FBD was created. The most common RCGs, according to the responses, were "perception of engineering (RCG1)" and "nature of contents (RCG2)." Further analysis of the RCs linked to specific RCGs revealed that most UGEs view engineering as a purely technical discipline and regard their STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) units as the most pertinent pursuits. Additionally, a sizeable portion of respondents criticized the management units provided to UGEs for their content, particularly for their level of difficulty and lack of alignment with contemporary engineering. Based on these presumptions and without compromising any of the ILOs, a revised delivery framework that incorporates modern operations management techniques and illustrates how they relate to various engineering disciplines was created. In order to improve student engagement and the unit's resilience against unforeseen threats to traditional classroom-based teaching activities, the revised contents, assessment, and structure also adequately leans toward a very robust online and blended learning delivery mode.
In terms of assessment, a compelling argument is made here in favor of the use of a hybrid assessment framework that enables the strengths of one approach to make up for the shortcomings of the other(s). In contrast to the previous single-point-heavy-weight approach (i.e., end-of-semester exams), the restructured assessment framework, which has now been implemented for two consecutive years, consists of four main elements. The four main components are LWC, SZWI, MZWI, and HWI. The SZWI and MZWI types are intended to increase students' engagement with the unit but do not count toward the final unit grade. SZWI is used once a week for 11 instructional weeks, only testing the students on that week's material. The MZWI only has one deployment point at the conclusion of the 12th week, but it accurately replicates the end-of-semester HWI, which accounts for 80% of the overall unit grade, allowing students to become accustomed to the assessment pattern in advance. There are no restrictions on how many times a student may attempt the weekly SZWI, which only uses digital MCQs. The MZWI and HWI combine mathematical, analytical, definitional, graphic interpretation, graphics analysis, and so on, to test a broad range of abilities. After 8 weeks of deployment, students are required to turn in a group project for the LWC assessment, which accounts for 20% of the unit's overall grade.
Common statistical performance indicators for five different cohorts were compared in order to determine the effectiveness of the restructured delivery framework from the perspective of students' attainment, and the results showed a consistent pattern of students' attainment. Additionally, between the academic years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, a students' scores match of >95% (i.e., 319 matched points from roughly 332) was accomplished, which so far indicates stability across the two cohorts that have used the restructured framework. Last but not the least, the elimination of manual grading for the HWI component of the assessment framework resulted in a superior level of consistency and a significant decrease in assessment costs and student complaints about the distribution of marks.