Integrating Outcome-Based Education and Maqasid Syariah in Islamic Higher Education Curriculum Governance
Abstract
Islamic higher education institutions increasingly adopt Outcome-Based Education (OBE) to satisfy accreditation demands and demonstrate measurable graduate achievement. However, Islamic values are often positioned as institutional slogans rather than as auditable design elements within curriculum governance. This study formulates an integrative curriculum governance model that operationalizes maqasid shariah within OBE and continuous quality improvement (CQI). A Systematic Literature Review was conducted using a PRISMA-informed protocol on 24 core studies selected from 112 initial records published between 2015 and 2025. The search covered Scopus, SINTA/Garuda, DOAJ, and Google Scholar using predefined keywords, inclusion criteria, quality appraisal, and thematic coding. The synthesis reveals three fragmented trajectories: OBE is strong in measurable curriculum design, maqasid is strong in ethical-philosophical orientation, and quality management is strong in evaluation and accountability. The novelty of this article lies in converting maqasid from a normative value framework into an operational curriculum-governance logic that can be mapped into graduate profiles, learning outcomes, assessment rubrics, value-integrated learning, and CQI documentation. The proposed five-stage model provides a replicable pathway for Islamic higher education to align academic measurability with Islamic epistemological identity and social responsibility.
References
1
[1] N. J. Rao, “Outcome-based education: An outline,” Higher Education for the Future, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 5–21, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631119886418
2
[2] J. Qadir et al., “Outcome-based engineering education: A global report of international OBE accreditation and assessment practices,” 2020 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2020. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--35020
3
[3] B. Kushari and L. Septiadi, “A learning outcome assessment information system to facilitate Outcome-Based Education (OBE) implementation,” Jurnal Pendidikan Teknologi dan Kejuruan, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 238–250, 2022. https://doi.org/10.21831/jptk.v28i2.42339
4
[4] R. Mufanti, D. Carter, and N. England, “Outcomes-based education in Indonesian higher education: Reporting on the understanding, challenges, and support available to teachers,” Social Sciences & Humanities Open, vol. 9, Art. no. 100873, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.100873
5
[5] D. N. Chotimah, M. Kirom, K. Roziki, and M. Abidin, “Outcome-Based Education (OBE) curriculum: Implementation in the Arabic Language and Literature study program,” Tadris: Jurnal Keguruan dan Ilmu Tarbiyah, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 369–382, 2025. https://doi.org/10.24042/tadris.v10i1.25279
6
[6] J. Auda, “Maqasid methodology for re-envisioning Islamic higher education,” Journal of Contemporary Maqasid Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 31–58, 2021. https://doi.org/10.52100/jcms.v1i1.58
7
[7] M. Ali, Firmansyah, E. Himayaturohmah, and M. I. Al Ghozali, “Integration of Adab values in higher education curriculum (KPT 2024) based on Outcome-Based Education (OBE),” Scaffolding: Jurnal Pendidikan Islam dan Multikulturalisme, vol. 7, no. 3, 2025. https://doi.org/10.37680/scaffolding.v7i3.7942
8
[8] E. Mahendra, “Mengatasi kesenjangan pendidikan berbasis Maqashid Syariah,” Islamika: Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Keislaman, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 18–35, 2025. https://doi.org/10.32939/islamika.v25i1.4994
9
[9] Sulfiani, N. S. Jannana, and S. Sentosa, “Enhancing Islamic educational quality through output-based quality assurance: A literature review perspective,” HEUTAGOGIA: Journal of Islamic Education, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 147–159, 2023. https://doi.org/10.14421/hjie.2023.32-02
10
[10] N. Y. Dwaikat, “A comprehensive model for assessing the quality in higher education institutions,” The TQM Journal, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 841–855, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-06-2020-0133
11
[11] H. M. C. Pushpakumara, P. M. Jayaweera, and M. K. Wanniarachchige, “Issues and challenges of quality assurance in higher education institutes: A systematic literature review,” Journal of Management Matters, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 49–65, 2023. https://doi.org/10.4038/jmm.v10i1.47
12
[12] R. Rosa and S. Clavero, “Gender equality in higher education and research,” Journal of Gender Studies, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2022.2007446
13
[13] G. Maheshwari, “A review of literature on women’s leadership in higher education in developed countries and in Vietnam: Barriers and enablers,” Educational Management Administration & Leadership, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 1067–1086, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211021418
14
[14] C. Araneda-Guirriman, G. Sepúlveda-Páez, L. Pedraja-Rejas, and J. San Martín, “Women in academia: An analysis through a scoping review,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 8, Art. no. 1137866, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1137866
15
[15] L. Stentiford and G. Koutsouris, “What are inclusive pedagogies in higher education? A systematic scoping review,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 2245–2261, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1716322
16
[16] T. M. Cumming and M. C. Rose, “Exploring universal design for learning as an accessibility tool in higher education: A review of the current literature,” The Australian Educational Researcher, vol. 49, pp. 1025–1043, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00471-7
17
[17] J. Tai, R. Ajjawi, M. Bearman, D. Boud, P. Dawson, and T. Jorre de St Jorre, “Assessment for inclusion: Rethinking contemporary strategies in assessment design,” Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 483–497, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2057451
18
[18] M. J. Page et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, Art. no. n71, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
19
[19] M. J. Page et al., “PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, Art. no. n160, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
20
[20] M. L. Rethlefsen et al., “PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews,” Systematic Reviews, vol. 10, Art. no. 39, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
21
[21] J. Paul, W. M. Lim, A. O’Cass, A. W. Hao, and S. Bresciani, “Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR),” International Journal of Consumer Studies, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. O1–O16, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12695
22
[22] V. Braun and V. Clarke, “One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 328–352, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
23
[23] D. Byrne, “A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis,” Quality & Quantity, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 1391–1412, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y
24
[24] M. H. Romanowski, H. Alkhateeb, and Y. Chaaban, “Problematizing constructive alignment in higher education in gulf cooperation council countries,” Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 2042–2060, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2180729
25
[25] L. Newby and L. Cornelissen, “A neutral toolkit? For a fundamental critique of constructive alignment,” Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1687–1702, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2025.2465987
26
[26] D. Carless and N. Winstone, “Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy,” Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 150–163, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372
27
[27] E. Molloy, D. Boud, and M. Henderson, “Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 527–540, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955
28
[28] J. Tai, M. Dollinger, R. Ajjawi, T. Jorre de St Jorre, S. Krattli, D. McCarthy, and D. Prezioso, “Designing assessment for inclusion: An exploration of diverse students’ assessment experiences,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 403–417, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2082373
29
[29] J. Tai, “Moving beyond reasonable adjustments: Supporting employability through inclusive assessment design,” Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 70–86, 2023. https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2023vol14no2art1785
30
[30] M. Bond, S. Bedenlier, V. I. Marín, and M. Händel, “Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 18, Art. no. 50, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x
31
[31] L. Czerniewicz et al., “A wake-up call: Equity, inequality and Covid-19 emergency remote teaching and learning,” Postdigital Science and Education, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 946–967, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00187-4
32
[32] R. Watermeyer, T. Crick, C. Knight, and J. Goodall, “COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: Afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration,” Higher Education, vol. 81, pp. 623–641, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00561-y
33
[33] K. A. A. Gamage, E. K. de Silva, and N. Gunawardhana, “Online delivery and assessment during COVID-19: Safeguarding academic integrity,” Education Sciences, vol. 10, no. 11, Art. no. 301, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110301
34
[34] K. A. A. Gamage, R. G. G. R. Pradeep, V. Najdanovic-Visak, and N. Gunawardhana, “Academic standards and quality assurance: The impact of COVID-19 on university degree programs,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 23, Art. no. 10032, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310032
35
[35] J. Jameson, N. Rumyantseva, M. Cai, M. Markowski, R. Essex, and I. McNay, “A systematic review and framework for digital leadership research maturity in higher education,” Computers and Education Open, vol. 3, Art. no. 100115, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100115
36
[36] M. Weiss, M. Barth, and H. von Wehrden, “The patterns of curriculum change processes that embed sustainability in higher education institutions,” Sustainability Science, vol. 16, pp. 1579–1593, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00984-1
37
[37] K. Brundiers et al., “Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—toward an agreed-upon reference framework,” Sustainability Science, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 13–29, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00838-2
38
[38] J. McArthur, “Rethinking authentic assessment: Work, well-being, and society,” Higher Education, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 85–101, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00822-y
39
[39] C. S. Gordon, M. A. Pink, H. Rosing, and S. Mizzi, “A systematic meta-analysis and meta-synthesis of the impact of service-learning programs on university students’ empathy,” Educational Research Review, vol. 37, Art. no. 100490, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100490
40
[40] M. J. Phillips, P. L. Dzidic, and E. L. Castell, “Exploring and critiquing women’s academic identity in higher education: A narrative review,” SAGE Open, vol. 12, no. 2, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221096145
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Merita Diana, Agus Pahrudin, Yuberti, Achi Rinaldi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Article Information
Published
2026-09-30