SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Course Outcome and Program Outcome Calculation(new method)

Ravikumar Tiwari, profile picture
Ravikumar Tiwari

This document outlines a new method for calculating Course Outcomes (CO) and Program Outcomes (PO) for accreditation, focusing on mapping attainment levels between various assessments. Various definitions and mappings are provided, along with examples of setting targets and determining levels of attainment based on student performance. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of continuous improvement in educational programs through the establishment of action plans when targets are not met.

Engineering
1 of 32
Downloaded 2,201 times
1
2
3
Most read
4
Most read
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Most read
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
National Board of Accreditation Course Outcome and Program Outcome Calculations (New method Based on Attainment Level) -By Ravikumar Tiwari, Assistant Professor, G.H.Raisoni College of Engineering, Nagpur e- rravik.tiwari@gmail.com @RaviTiwari90
Terminology (Abbreviations) Course Outcomes (CO) Program Outcomes (PO) Program Educational Objectives (PEO) Program Specific Outcomes (PSO)
Few definitions Mapping Factor(Correlation Level)  It indicates to what extent a certain component(either assessment method to CO or CO to PO or PO to PEO & PSO)  3-indicates Substantial (high) mapping (high contribution towards attainment)  2-indicates Moderate (medium) mapping (medium contribution towards attainment)  1-indicates Slight (low) mapping (some contribution towards attainment) Level of Attainment:  This is just discretization of percent attainment  To not get confused with mapping factor, will indicate this by labels as  HH(3)- High level of attainment  MM(2)- Medium level of attainment  LL(1)- Low level of attainment  NA(0)- No attainment
CO-PO mapping (example) PO 1 PO 2 PO 3 PO 4 PO 5 PO 6 PO 7 PO 8 PO 9 PO 10 PO 11 PO 12 SEM NBA COD E SUB CODE Course COURSE OUTCO MES COURSE OUTCOMES Statement Thir d C203 BEXX2 01 Course name C203.1 . 3 3 2 2 - - 3 3 2 2 1 - C203.2 - - - - - - 3 3 3 2 1 - C203.3 - - - - - - 3 2 2 2 1 - C203.4 - - - - - - 3 2 2 2 1 - C203.5 - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 1 - C203.6 - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 1 - This is example for one course, the same to be done for all course of program including courses taught in first year 1: Slight (Low) 2: Moderate (Medium) 3: Substantial (High) “-” : no correlation
Level of attainment  Scale of levels can be defined by program coordinator or Head of department  Here 3 levels of attainment is taken as 1-Low; 2-medium; 3- High  3 levels of attainment can be defined as  HH(3) :- 70% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method  MM(3):- 60% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method  LL (1) :- 50% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method  NA(0):- Less than 50% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method
Course Outcome Calculations  If targets are achieved then all the course outcomes are attained for that year Program is expected to set higher targets for the following years as a part of continuous improvement  Also if scale of 3 levels is used in one year, and if higher level is attained then scale of 5 levels can be used following year. Scale of 5 level may be defined as follows: HH(5) :- 80% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method HM(4):- 70% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method MM (3) :- 60% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method ML (2) :- 50% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method LL (1) :- 40% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method NA(0):- Less than 40% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method  If targets are not achieved then instead of lowering target; program should put in place an action plan to attain the target in subsequent years
Target Setting for each assessment method  For setting up target average; average marks of last three exam must be taken into consideration and it should be kept as target average marks  If average marks of last exams are not available then current average marks can also be considered as target attainment  This would be different for each assessment method (e.g. Internal assessment: assignment1, assignment2, class test1, class test2 etc. External assessment: End sem exam/university exam, Practical external exam)  To be noted here last three exam should be taken into account i.e. to say one course may be offered in even and odd both sem as under CBCS
Mapping of CO with Assessment methods (example) Internal Component External Component Teacher Assignment Class Test Practical examination (if there for the course) End Sem Exam Course Name Course Outcome T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 Course: C301 (Course Name) C301.1 2 - - - - 3 - - 3 3 C301.2 1 - - 2 - 3 - - 3 3 C301.3 - 3 1 - 2 - 3 - 3 3 C301.4 3 - - - 1 - 3 - 3 3 C301.5 - 1 - - - - - 3 3 3 C301.6 - - 3 - 3 - - 3 3 3 1: Slight (Low) 2: Moderate (Medium) 3: Substantial (High) “-” : no correlation
Justification of Mapping  Proper justification for course outcomes with assessment must be provided.  For internal assessment like teacher assignment and class test, one can design the assessment based on Course Outcomes  For example, Class Test-1 is based on CO1 and CO2 with equal weightage given to both COs and that is why CO1 & CO2 both mapped with C1 with mapping factor of 3 (refer previous slide). Same for Class Test-2(C2) & C3 is done.  While in practical examination, if you have practical's based on COs and assessment is available practical-wise then mapping can be done CO-wise or else equal contribution to all COs can be considered as done here (mapping factor 3 with all COs)  Same for end semester/University exam, if questions are based on COs and also evaluation is available question-wise then COs to be mapped question-wise or else equal contribution to all COs can be considered as done here (mapping factor 3 with all COs)
CO based practical's and end sem questions (for TIER-I)  For TIER-I category institutes (Autonomous college and deemed university), where all exams are taken by institute; they can have list of practical's designed keeping Course Outcome in mind. Also evaluation should be done CO-wise.  Same with End-Sem(term) exam, questions should be so deigned based to assess Course Outcome  For example, (considering six CO), Six practical's each specifically for each CO. Also the internal ERP software can be so designed where marks for each CO to be inserted and then it can be converted out of (25/50)  For end sem too, marks of each CO based question should be inserted and then total marks can be calculated  This will really helpful for assessing Course Outcomes when all marks of COs are available separately
Definition of attainment  Attainment can be defined as what percentage of students have above set target marks  Example, if 140 students appeared in an end semester exam (60 marks) and you have set target marks as 30 (last three exam average to be considered while deciding target marks) THEN attainment can be calculated as:  % Attainment= (No. of students scoring 30 or above marks / 140)*100  Let’s say 104 students scored 30 or above marks Then % attainment would be  % Attainment= (104/140)*100 =74.28%  Therefore, level of attainment for end sem exam is “3” as scale is defined
Assigning levels to assessment method Teacher Assignment(4) Class Test(20) Pr(25) ESE Marks (60) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 Practical Average (current exam) 3 4 4 3 4 9.2 11.9 10.5 21 28.0 Target average(avg . of last 3 exam) 4 4 4 4 4 10 9 10 20 25 % Attainment 51 76.1 77.5 55.1 74 51 74.6 61 78 55 Level LL HH HH LL HH LL HH MM HH LL Levels HH(3) :- Above 70% MM(2):- Above 60% LL (1) :- Above 50% NA (0) :- less than 50% **This are actual calculation done for my subject
Course Outcome Calculation Teacher Assignment Class Test End Sem Exam (Externa l compone nt) Course Name Cours e Outco me T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 PR Levels LL HH HH LL HH LL HH MM HH LL Course:C 301 (Course Name) C301. 1 2 - - - - 3 - - 3 3 C301. 2 1 - - 2 - 3 - - 3 3 C301. 3 - 3 1 - 2 - 3 - 3 3 C301. 4 3 - - - 1 - 3 - 3 3 C301. 5 - 1 - - - - - 3 3 3 C301. 6 - - 3 - 3 - - 3 3 3
Course Outcome Calculation For calculation purpose ‘-’ is replaced by ‘0’ Teacher Assignment Class Test Practi cal [*int] Attainme nt Level (Internal) End Sem Exam [*ext] Attainme nt Level (External ) Overall Attain ment Course Name Course Outco me T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 Pr Levels LL HH HH LL HH LL HH MM HH LL Level Point 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 2 3 1 int*0. 4+ ext*0. 6 Course: C301 C301.1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 *1.75 3 1 1.30 (Cours e Name) C301.2 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 3 1.67 3 1 1.27 C301.3 0 3 1 0 2 0 3 0 3 2.67 3 1 1.67 C301.4 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 2.20 3 1 1.48 C301.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2.57 3 1 1.63 C301.6 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 3 2.25 3 1 1.50 *Calculation explained in next slide
Course Outcome Calculation Explained Teacher Assignment Class Test Practi cal [*int] Attainme nt Level (Internal) End Sem Exam [*ext] Attainme nt Level (External ) Overall Attain ment Course Name Course Outco me T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 Pr Levels LL HH HH LL HH LL HH MM HH LL Level Point 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 2 3 1 int*0. 4+ ext*0. 6 Course: C301 C301.1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1.75 3 1 1.30 Attainment Level(internal)= Σ (Mapping factor*Level Points)/ Σ Mapping factor = (2*1+0*3+0*3+0*1+ 0*3+3*1+0*3+0*2+3*3)/ (2+3+3) =1.75 Attainment Level (external)= (3*1)/3=1 Overall Attainment CO1(C301.1) (considering 40% contribution from internal assessment and 60% from external assessment) = 1.75*0.4+1*0.6= 1.30
Summary and Remarks on attainment Course Outcome Attainment Level Remarks C301.1 1.30 Attained C301.2 1.27 Attained C301.3 1.67 Attained C301.4 1.48 Attained C301.5 1.63 Attained C301.6 1.50 Attained
Analogy to Credit Grade System  It is just like the Grading system where we defined cut-off of marks  Here cut-off are nothing but the Target level of attainment which we have defined as HH(3) :- 70% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method MM(3):- 60% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method LL (1) :- 50% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method NA(0):- Less than 50% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method
Analogy to Credit Grade System  Students who just gets more than cut-off marks pass the exam but with lower grades  Same in this method too, even if the level of attainment is just “1” , we can say that Course Outcome is attained  If Level of attainment is less than “1” then Course Outcome is not attained and then proper Gap Analysis to be done  If similar method is used for Outcome calculation of previous exam then we can set the Target for Level Attainment or else during mid of term seeing performance of students in internal component, Teacher can set target
Target for Level Attainment and Gap Analysis Couse Outcome Attainmen t Level for last exam Target for current exam Attainment Level of current exam Gap Gap Analysis C301.1 1.2 2 1.30 0.70 Performance of students in end semester exam is not as expected C301.2 1.4 2 1.27 0.73 C301.3 1.5 2 1.67 0.33 C301.4 1.8 2 1.48 0.52 C301.5 1.4 2 1.63 0.37 C301.6 1.3 2 1.50 0.50 *Target should be kept based on the performance of students in first and second Class Test but before term ends, so that Teacher will have sufficient time to work on delivery (if performance is on lower side)
Program Outcome Calculations
Program Articulation Matrix with Program Outcomes & PSO (to be done for all courses) [3.1 point in NBA SAR] Course PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 C101 3 3 - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - C102 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C103 3 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - C104 3 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - C105 3 3 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - C107 3 3 - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - C108
Course Articulation Matrix [to be done for all courses of program] Course COURSE OUTCOMES [Statement] PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 C301 C301.1 1 1 3 2 2 - - - 1 - - - 2 2 1 C301.2 1 1 3 2 3 - - - 1 - - - 2 2 1 C301.3 1 1 3 3 3 - - - 1 - - - 3 3 1 C301.4 1 1 3 3 3 - - - 1 - - - 3 3 1 C301.5 1 2 3 3 3 - - - 1 - - 1 3 3 1 C301.6 1 2 3 3 3 - - - 1 - - 1 3 3 1
Program Outcome Calculation  For Calculation of Program Outcome, we can use two method: (i)Direct Method (ii)Indirect Method  Direct Method: In direct method, we take CO attainment of all courses contributing to particular Program Outcomes and then calculate the attainment based on mapping (as per course articulation matrix)  Indirect Method: In indirect method, surveys from current passing out students (program exit survey), survey from employer (during placement), survey from industry person (if students are working as intern for some industry) to be taken. All this survey needs to be quantified [put questions like rate our students in the scale of 5 (5-excellent, 1-not satisfactory)] Indirect method too should be based on predefined levels Example; Level-3: 80% or above survey takers giving 4 or 5 marks Level-2: 70% or above survey takers giving 4 or 5 marks Level-1: 60% or above survey takers giving 4 or 5 marks
Program Outcome Calculation [Direct Method] Co urse Course Outco mes Attainmen t Level Column A PO1 colum n B PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 C3 01 C301.1 1.5 1 1 3 2 2 1 - 1 1 - - - 2 2 1 C301.2 2.1 1 1 3 2 3 1 - - 1 - - - 2 2 1 C301.3 2.4 1 1 3 3 3 - - - 1 2 - - 3 3 1 C301.4 2.5 1 1 3 3 3 2 - - 1 - - - 3 3 1 C301.5 2.4 1 2 3 3 3 - - 1 1 - - 1 3 3 1 C301.6 2.7 1 2 3 3 3 2 - - 1 2 - 1 3 3 1 C3 02 C302.1 1.8 - - - - - - 1 - 2 1 3 - - - - C302.2 1.9 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - - C302.3 1.7 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - - C302.4 2.7 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - - C302.5 2.1 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - - C302.6 1.4 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - - Program Outcome Attainmen t 2.27 2.34 2.27 2.33 2.31 2.33 1.93 1.95 2.04 2.40 1.93 2.55 2.33 2.33 2.27 Here only 2 course are taken but for actual calculations all courses needs to be taken Calculation: PO1= (column A* Column B)/Sum(column B) This can be easily done in excel
Program Outcome Calculation [Indirect Method] Attainment levels Survey Mappin g ColA PO1 ColB PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO1 0 PO1 1 PO1 2 PSO 1 PSO 2 PSO 3 Program Exit Survey 1 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 3 Employe r Survey 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 External Guide Survey 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 Program Outcome Attainme nt 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 Calculation: PO1= ColA*ColB/5
Program Outcome Attainment [Indirect Method] 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 22 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 Program Outcomes Attainment (Indirect Method) Program Exit Survey Employer Survey External Guide Survey
Program Outcome Calculation [Overall] Method PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 Direct Method 2.27 2.34 2.27 2.33 2.31 2.33 1.93 1.95 2.04 2.40 1.93 2.55 2.33 2.33 2.27 Indirect Method 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 Overall Attainm ent (Direct* 0.6+indi rect*0.4 ) 2.24 2.52 2.24 2.36 2.43 2.12 2.20 2.21 1.94 2.48 2.04 2.65 2.28 2.36 2.40 Here Direct method is considered to have 60% contribution and indirect method as 40% contribution Calculation: Overall Attainment= direct*0.6+indirect*0.4
Graphs and Charts 2.27 2.34 2.27 2.33 2.31 2.33 1.93 1.95 2.04 2.40 1.93 2.55 2.33 2.33 2.27 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 Program Outcome and Program Specific Outcome Attainment Direct Method Indirect Method
Graphs and Charts 2.24 2.52 2.24 2.36 2.43 2.12 2.20 2.21 1.94 2.48 2.04 2.65 2.28 2.36 2.40 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 Overall Attainment: Program Outcomes and Program Specific Outcomes
Few points to remember  Outcome calculation can not be rigid, that is to say one can have ‘n’ number of methods to calculate  Only thing to remember is method should be properly justified  Also the method described in this presentation is completely based on my understanding. I have tried to addressed all explanation of calculation with proper justification.  Also if someone disagrees with the method, I am up for suggestion but no debate  For workshop or session on NBA outcome accreditation, send me e-mail on rravik.tiwari@gmail.com
Consultancy for Software firm/company  The software companies who are into education software business , if wants to develops a software/ web portal for Course Outcome and Program Outcome Calculation, I can consult for developing algorithm and method  Write an e-mail to me(on title slide) for such work.
Thanking You

More Related Content

PPTX
NBA : CO PO Mapping
Suhas Deshmukh
 
PPTX
Sdr co po ppt (4)
Mekhalaramesh
 
PPTX
Cr 3: Course Outcomes and Program Outcomes
Mithun Maniyar
 
PDF
Road-Map for NBA Accreditation of Pharmacy Colleges
Brijesh Taksande
 
PPTX
Health and Fitness
Mustafa Yıldırım
 
PDF
Written analysis & communication
Sachin Bhurase
 
PPTX
Principles of primary health care
Vaishnavi Madhavan
 
PDF
Plastics processing Manual (CIPET JAIPUR)
Naresh Dhaker
 
NBA : CO PO Mapping
Suhas Deshmukh
 
Sdr co po ppt (4)
Mekhalaramesh
 
Cr 3: Course Outcomes and Program Outcomes
Mithun Maniyar
 
Road-Map for NBA Accreditation of Pharmacy Colleges
Brijesh Taksande
 
Health and Fitness
Mustafa Yıldırım
 
Written analysis & communication
Sachin Bhurase
 
Principles of primary health care
Vaishnavi Madhavan
 
Plastics processing Manual (CIPET JAIPUR)
Naresh Dhaker
 

What's hot (20)

PDF
NAAC : Accreditation Process
Rishabh Garg
 
PPTX
Naac criteria
Anil Kumar Prajapati
 
PDF
NAAC : Complete Process - Dr HK Garg
PROFESSOR Dr. H.K. Garg
 
PDF
Criteria-2-–-Teaching-Learning-and-Evaluation-NAAC-Perspectives-by-Prof.-Rajm...
taruian
 
PPSX
Naac
Sourabh Dattalkar
 
PPTX
NAAC New Assessment & Accreditation Framework 2024
VeluSureshKumar
 
PPTX
IQAC NAAC Presentation - Jamia Millia Islamia 2021
Kasim M
 
PDF
Checklist for academic and administrative audit
Prof. A.Balasubramanian
 
PPTX
Nba co attainment
SHIMI S L
 
PPTX
Criteria 2 NAAC New guideline ppt
Anita GoswamiGiri
 
PPTX
Awareness on outcome based education and accreditation process
DrSreeLatha
 
PDF
Naac presentation by Dr. S. Sujatha.
Aakarsh2011
 
PDF
ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATION:REVISED PROCESS -AFFILIATED/CONSTITUENT COLLEGES
Abhay Khandagle
 
PPTX
Extention activities-NAAC
Sir Parashurambhau College, Pune
 
PPT
Preparation for NAAC accreditation
Dr. Manoj Kumbhare
 
PPTX
PPT NAAC Criteria-5-by-Dr.-Roshan Lal Kahar.pptx
RoshanKahar1
 
PPTX
REVISED ACCREDITATION FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW_SP.pptx
ReshmaSR9
 
PDF
Iqac report final
Government Degree College for Women
 
PPTX
CRITERIA 2 new.pptx NAAC ppt criteria wise
ShwethaGy2
 
PPT
naac ppt new.ppt
Deepak Sharma
 
NAAC : Accreditation Process
Rishabh Garg
 
Naac criteria
Anil Kumar Prajapati
 
NAAC : Complete Process - Dr HK Garg
PROFESSOR Dr. H.K. Garg
 
Criteria-2-–-Teaching-Learning-and-Evaluation-NAAC-Perspectives-by-Prof.-Rajm...
taruian
 
Naac
Sourabh Dattalkar
 
NAAC New Assessment & Accreditation Framework 2024
VeluSureshKumar
 
IQAC NAAC Presentation - Jamia Millia Islamia 2021
Kasim M
 
Checklist for academic and administrative audit
Prof. A.Balasubramanian
 
Nba co attainment
SHIMI S L
 
Criteria 2 NAAC New guideline ppt
Anita GoswamiGiri
 
Awareness on outcome based education and accreditation process
DrSreeLatha
 
Naac presentation by Dr. S. Sujatha.
Aakarsh2011
 
ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATION:REVISED PROCESS -AFFILIATED/CONSTITUENT COLLEGES
Abhay Khandagle
 
Extention activities-NAAC
Sir Parashurambhau College, Pune
 
Preparation for NAAC accreditation
Dr. Manoj Kumbhare
 
PPT NAAC Criteria-5-by-Dr.-Roshan Lal Kahar.pptx
RoshanKahar1
 
REVISED ACCREDITATION FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW_SP.pptx
ReshmaSR9
 
Iqac report final
Government Degree College for Women
 
CRITERIA 2 new.pptx NAAC ppt criteria wise
ShwethaGy2
 
naac ppt new.ppt
Deepak Sharma
 
Ad

Similar to Course Outcome and Program Outcome Calculation(new method) (20)

PDF
Steps for CO-PO attainment process in the Accreditation
Dr. Arun Shridharan Pillai
 
PDF
evaluator-report-Part-B-pg-engg-v0.pdf
Anbuselvi Mathivanan
 
PDF
Rules aandregulationsforms1
bikram ...
 
PDF
Rules aandregulationsforms
bikram ...
 
DOCX
3.2.2 cp ii (2)
Gaurav Paliwal
 
PPTX
Outcome Based Education and Assessment
Vijay Kumar Jadon
 
PDF
M.b.a ist year syllabus
Krati Sharma
 
PDF
Harvard Corporate Finance Syllabus
Adam Higdon
 
PPTX
New K to 12 Grading System for Parents Orientation
Lu
 
PPTX
Assessment of Learning 2
Aira Bustamante
 
PPT
OBE Student Learning Time (SLT) & Assessment
Ghazally Faridah
 
PPTX
Assessment of Student Learning
Carlo Casumpong
 
PPTX
Pedagogy fig presentation 2 8_11
DonnaMahar
 
PPTX
NBA Criteria in Detail.pptx
lowlesh1
 
DOCX
Course Learning OutcomesBy the conclusion of this course, you sh
CruzIbarra161
 
PPT
Trainer evaluation project
fgaragozlo
 
PPTX
CO - PO Attainment - NBA - NAAC - Attainment Analysis
CarolineSam5
 
PDF
NBA criteria 3 and 4 for Tier 1 institute
Bharti Shinde
 
PPTX
Developmental Education Taskforce Recommendations january 2013
cccscoetc
 
PDF
Grading sh-learners
Galina Panela
 
Steps for CO-PO attainment process in the Accreditation
Dr. Arun Shridharan Pillai
 
evaluator-report-Part-B-pg-engg-v0.pdf
Anbuselvi Mathivanan
 
Rules aandregulationsforms1
bikram ...
 
Rules aandregulationsforms
bikram ...
 
3.2.2 cp ii (2)
Gaurav Paliwal
 
Outcome Based Education and Assessment
Vijay Kumar Jadon
 
M.b.a ist year syllabus
Krati Sharma
 
Harvard Corporate Finance Syllabus
Adam Higdon
 
New K to 12 Grading System for Parents Orientation
Lu
 
Assessment of Learning 2
Aira Bustamante
 
OBE Student Learning Time (SLT) & Assessment
Ghazally Faridah
 
Assessment of Student Learning
Carlo Casumpong
 
Pedagogy fig presentation 2 8_11
DonnaMahar
 
NBA Criteria in Detail.pptx
lowlesh1
 
Course Learning OutcomesBy the conclusion of this course, you sh
CruzIbarra161
 
Trainer evaluation project
fgaragozlo
 
CO - PO Attainment - NBA - NAAC - Attainment Analysis
CarolineSam5
 
NBA criteria 3 and 4 for Tier 1 institute
Bharti Shinde
 
Developmental Education Taskforce Recommendations january 2013
cccscoetc
 
Grading sh-learners
Galina Panela
 
Ad

More from Ravikumar Tiwari (8)

PPTX
Fun with arduino
Ravikumar Tiwari
 
PPTX
ARM- Programmer's Model
Ravikumar Tiwari
 
PPT
ARM Micro-controller
Ravikumar Tiwari
 
PPTX
8051 Addressing modes
Ravikumar Tiwari
 
PPTX
8051 Assembly Language Programming
Ravikumar Tiwari
 
PPTX
8051 Microcontroller
Ravikumar Tiwari
 
PPTX
RISC Vs CISC, Harvard v/s Van Neumann
Ravikumar Tiwari
 
PPTX
Introducing Embedded Systems and the Microcontrollers
Ravikumar Tiwari
 
Fun with arduino
Ravikumar Tiwari
 
ARM- Programmer's Model
Ravikumar Tiwari
 
ARM Micro-controller
Ravikumar Tiwari
 
8051 Addressing modes
Ravikumar Tiwari
 
8051 Assembly Language Programming
Ravikumar Tiwari
 
8051 Microcontroller
Ravikumar Tiwari
 
RISC Vs CISC, Harvard v/s Van Neumann
Ravikumar Tiwari
 
Introducing Embedded Systems and the Microcontrollers
Ravikumar Tiwari
 

Recently uploaded (20)

PPTX
UNIT 4 Total Quality Management .pptx
gokuld13012005
 
PPTX
IOT PPTs Week 10 Lecture Material.pptx of NPTEL Smart Cities contd
ssusera400e8
 
PDF
Embodied AI: Ushering in the Next Era of Intelligent Systems
Yu Huang
 
PDF
SM_6th-Sem__Cse_Internet-of-Things.pdf IOT
smceramu
 
PDF
Evaluating the Democratization of the Turkish Armed Forces from a Normative P...
jpsjournal1
 
PDF
Well-logging-methods_new................
ZafriFarid
 
PPTX
CYBER-CRIMES AND SECURITY A guide to understanding
Davies Chacko
 
PDF
Digital Logic Computer Design lecture notes
CHINNASUNKAIAH1
 
PDF
The CXO Playbook 2025 – Future-Ready Strategies for C-Suite Leaders Cerebrai...
Cerebraix Technologies
 
PPT
Project quality management in manufacturing
BarMusaTetik
 
PPTX
KTU 2019 -S7-MCN 401 MODULE 2-VINAY.pptx
VinayB68
 
PDF
July 2025 - Top 10 Read Articles in International Journal of Software Enginee...
sebastianku31
 
PPTX
Infosys Presentation by1.Riyan Bagwan 2.Samadhan Naiknavare 3.Gaurav Shinde 4...
bapushinde7218
 
PDF
R24 SURVEYING LAB MANUAL for civil enggi
MNANDITHACIVILSTAFF
 
PPTX
FINAL REVIEW FOR COPD DIANOSIS FOR PULMONARY DISEASE.pptx
rubeshbme
 
DOCX
ASol_English-Language-Literature-Set-1-27-02-2023-converted.docx
AYUSHMANAV
 
PPTX
Geodesy 1.pptx...............................................
abhi1361yadav
 
PPTX
web development for engineering and engineering
keshriji700
 
PDF
Enhancing Cyber Defense Against Zero-Day Attacks using Ensemble Neural Networks
IJCNCJournal
 
PPTX
OOP with Java - Java Introduction (Basics)
Rashmi T V
 
UNIT 4 Total Quality Management .pptx
gokuld13012005
 
IOT PPTs Week 10 Lecture Material.pptx of NPTEL Smart Cities contd
ssusera400e8
 
Embodied AI: Ushering in the Next Era of Intelligent Systems
Yu Huang
 
SM_6th-Sem__Cse_Internet-of-Things.pdf IOT
smceramu
 
Evaluating the Democratization of the Turkish Armed Forces from a Normative P...
jpsjournal1
 
Well-logging-methods_new................
ZafriFarid
 
CYBER-CRIMES AND SECURITY A guide to understanding
Davies Chacko
 
Digital Logic Computer Design lecture notes
CHINNASUNKAIAH1
 
The CXO Playbook 2025 – Future-Ready Strategies for C-Suite Leaders Cerebrai...
Cerebraix Technologies
 
Project quality management in manufacturing
BarMusaTetik
 
KTU 2019 -S7-MCN 401 MODULE 2-VINAY.pptx
VinayB68
 
July 2025 - Top 10 Read Articles in International Journal of Software Enginee...
sebastianku31
 
Infosys Presentation by1.Riyan Bagwan 2.Samadhan Naiknavare 3.Gaurav Shinde 4...
bapushinde7218
 
R24 SURVEYING LAB MANUAL for civil enggi
MNANDITHACIVILSTAFF
 
FINAL REVIEW FOR COPD DIANOSIS FOR PULMONARY DISEASE.pptx
rubeshbme
 
ASol_English-Language-Literature-Set-1-27-02-2023-converted.docx
AYUSHMANAV
 
Geodesy 1.pptx...............................................
abhi1361yadav
 
web development for engineering and engineering
keshriji700
 
Enhancing Cyber Defense Against Zero-Day Attacks using Ensemble Neural Networks
IJCNCJournal
 
OOP with Java - Java Introduction (Basics)
Rashmi T V
 

Course Outcome and Program Outcome Calculation(new method)

  • 1. National Board of Accreditation Course Outcome and Program Outcome Calculations (New method Based on Attainment Level) -By Ravikumar Tiwari, Assistant Professor, G.H.Raisoni College of Engineering, Nagpur e- rravik.tiwari@gmail.com @RaviTiwari90
  • 2. Terminology (Abbreviations) Course Outcomes (CO) Program Outcomes (PO) Program Educational Objectives (PEO) Program Specific Outcomes (PSO)
  • 3. Few definitions Mapping Factor(Correlation Level)  It indicates to what extent a certain component(either assessment method to CO or CO to PO or PO to PEO & PSO)  3-indicates Substantial (high) mapping (high contribution towards attainment)  2-indicates Moderate (medium) mapping (medium contribution towards attainment)  1-indicates Slight (low) mapping (some contribution towards attainment) Level of Attainment:  This is just discretization of percent attainment  To not get confused with mapping factor, will indicate this by labels as  HH(3)- High level of attainment  MM(2)- Medium level of attainment  LL(1)- Low level of attainment  NA(0)- No attainment
  • 4. CO-PO mapping (example) PO 1 PO 2 PO 3 PO 4 PO 5 PO 6 PO 7 PO 8 PO 9 PO 10 PO 11 PO 12 SEM NBA COD E SUB CODE Course COURSE OUTCO MES COURSE OUTCOMES Statement Thir d C203 BEXX2 01 Course name C203.1 . 3 3 2 2 - - 3 3 2 2 1 - C203.2 - - - - - - 3 3 3 2 1 - C203.3 - - - - - - 3 2 2 2 1 - C203.4 - - - - - - 3 2 2 2 1 - C203.5 - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 1 - C203.6 - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 1 - This is example for one course, the same to be done for all course of program including courses taught in first year 1: Slight (Low) 2: Moderate (Medium) 3: Substantial (High) “-” : no correlation
  • 5. Level of attainment  Scale of levels can be defined by program coordinator or Head of department  Here 3 levels of attainment is taken as 1-Low; 2-medium; 3- High  3 levels of attainment can be defined as  HH(3) :- 70% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method  MM(3):- 60% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method  LL (1) :- 50% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method  NA(0):- Less than 50% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method
  • 6. Course Outcome Calculations  If targets are achieved then all the course outcomes are attained for that year Program is expected to set higher targets for the following years as a part of continuous improvement  Also if scale of 3 levels is used in one year, and if higher level is attained then scale of 5 levels can be used following year. Scale of 5 level may be defined as follows: HH(5) :- 80% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method HM(4):- 70% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method MM (3) :- 60% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method ML (2) :- 50% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method LL (1) :- 40% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method NA(0):- Less than 40% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method  If targets are not achieved then instead of lowering target; program should put in place an action plan to attain the target in subsequent years
  • 7. Target Setting for each assessment method  For setting up target average; average marks of last three exam must be taken into consideration and it should be kept as target average marks  If average marks of last exams are not available then current average marks can also be considered as target attainment  This would be different for each assessment method (e.g. Internal assessment: assignment1, assignment2, class test1, class test2 etc. External assessment: End sem exam/university exam, Practical external exam)  To be noted here last three exam should be taken into account i.e. to say one course may be offered in even and odd both sem as under CBCS
  • 8. Mapping of CO with Assessment methods (example) Internal Component External Component Teacher Assignment Class Test Practical examination (if there for the course) End Sem Exam Course Name Course Outcome T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 Course: C301 (Course Name) C301.1 2 - - - - 3 - - 3 3 C301.2 1 - - 2 - 3 - - 3 3 C301.3 - 3 1 - 2 - 3 - 3 3 C301.4 3 - - - 1 - 3 - 3 3 C301.5 - 1 - - - - - 3 3 3 C301.6 - - 3 - 3 - - 3 3 3 1: Slight (Low) 2: Moderate (Medium) 3: Substantial (High) “-” : no correlation
  • 9. Justification of Mapping  Proper justification for course outcomes with assessment must be provided.  For internal assessment like teacher assignment and class test, one can design the assessment based on Course Outcomes  For example, Class Test-1 is based on CO1 and CO2 with equal weightage given to both COs and that is why CO1 & CO2 both mapped with C1 with mapping factor of 3 (refer previous slide). Same for Class Test-2(C2) & C3 is done.  While in practical examination, if you have practical's based on COs and assessment is available practical-wise then mapping can be done CO-wise or else equal contribution to all COs can be considered as done here (mapping factor 3 with all COs)  Same for end semester/University exam, if questions are based on COs and also evaluation is available question-wise then COs to be mapped question-wise or else equal contribution to all COs can be considered as done here (mapping factor 3 with all COs)
  • 10. CO based practical's and end sem questions (for TIER-I)  For TIER-I category institutes (Autonomous college and deemed university), where all exams are taken by institute; they can have list of practical's designed keeping Course Outcome in mind. Also evaluation should be done CO-wise.  Same with End-Sem(term) exam, questions should be so deigned based to assess Course Outcome  For example, (considering six CO), Six practical's each specifically for each CO. Also the internal ERP software can be so designed where marks for each CO to be inserted and then it can be converted out of (25/50)  For end sem too, marks of each CO based question should be inserted and then total marks can be calculated  This will really helpful for assessing Course Outcomes when all marks of COs are available separately
  • 11. Definition of attainment  Attainment can be defined as what percentage of students have above set target marks  Example, if 140 students appeared in an end semester exam (60 marks) and you have set target marks as 30 (last three exam average to be considered while deciding target marks) THEN attainment can be calculated as:  % Attainment= (No. of students scoring 30 or above marks / 140)*100  Let’s say 104 students scored 30 or above marks Then % attainment would be  % Attainment= (104/140)*100 =74.28%  Therefore, level of attainment for end sem exam is “3” as scale is defined
  • 12. Assigning levels to assessment method Teacher Assignment(4) Class Test(20) Pr(25) ESE Marks (60) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 Practical Average (current exam) 3 4 4 3 4 9.2 11.9 10.5 21 28.0 Target average(avg . of last 3 exam) 4 4 4 4 4 10 9 10 20 25 % Attainment 51 76.1 77.5 55.1 74 51 74.6 61 78 55 Level LL HH HH LL HH LL HH MM HH LL Levels HH(3) :- Above 70% MM(2):- Above 60% LL (1) :- Above 50% NA (0) :- less than 50% **This are actual calculation done for my subject
  • 13. Course Outcome Calculation Teacher Assignment Class Test End Sem Exam (Externa l compone nt) Course Name Cours e Outco me T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 PR Levels LL HH HH LL HH LL HH MM HH LL Course:C 301 (Course Name) C301. 1 2 - - - - 3 - - 3 3 C301. 2 1 - - 2 - 3 - - 3 3 C301. 3 - 3 1 - 2 - 3 - 3 3 C301. 4 3 - - - 1 - 3 - 3 3 C301. 5 - 1 - - - - - 3 3 3 C301. 6 - - 3 - 3 - - 3 3 3
  • 14. Course Outcome Calculation For calculation purpose ‘-’ is replaced by ‘0’ Teacher Assignment Class Test Practi cal [*int] Attainme nt Level (Internal) End Sem Exam [*ext] Attainme nt Level (External ) Overall Attain ment Course Name Course Outco me T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 Pr Levels LL HH HH LL HH LL HH MM HH LL Level Point 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 2 3 1 int*0. 4+ ext*0. 6 Course: C301 C301.1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 *1.75 3 1 1.30 (Cours e Name) C301.2 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 3 1.67 3 1 1.27 C301.3 0 3 1 0 2 0 3 0 3 2.67 3 1 1.67 C301.4 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 2.20 3 1 1.48 C301.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2.57 3 1 1.63 C301.6 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 3 2.25 3 1 1.50 *Calculation explained in next slide
  • 15. Course Outcome Calculation Explained Teacher Assignment Class Test Practi cal [*int] Attainme nt Level (Internal) End Sem Exam [*ext] Attainme nt Level (External ) Overall Attain ment Course Name Course Outco me T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 Pr Levels LL HH HH LL HH LL HH MM HH LL Level Point 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 2 3 1 int*0. 4+ ext*0. 6 Course: C301 C301.1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1.75 3 1 1.30 Attainment Level(internal)= Σ (Mapping factor*Level Points)/ Σ Mapping factor = (2*1+0*3+0*3+0*1+ 0*3+3*1+0*3+0*2+3*3)/ (2+3+3) =1.75 Attainment Level (external)= (3*1)/3=1 Overall Attainment CO1(C301.1) (considering 40% contribution from internal assessment and 60% from external assessment) = 1.75*0.4+1*0.6= 1.30
  • 16. Summary and Remarks on attainment Course Outcome Attainment Level Remarks C301.1 1.30 Attained C301.2 1.27 Attained C301.3 1.67 Attained C301.4 1.48 Attained C301.5 1.63 Attained C301.6 1.50 Attained
  • 17. Analogy to Credit Grade System  It is just like the Grading system where we defined cut-off of marks  Here cut-off are nothing but the Target level of attainment which we have defined as HH(3) :- 70% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method MM(3):- 60% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method LL (1) :- 50% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method NA(0):- Less than 50% students scoring more than average marks or set target marks in an assessment method
  • 18. Analogy to Credit Grade System  Students who just gets more than cut-off marks pass the exam but with lower grades  Same in this method too, even if the level of attainment is just “1” , we can say that Course Outcome is attained  If Level of attainment is less than “1” then Course Outcome is not attained and then proper Gap Analysis to be done  If similar method is used for Outcome calculation of previous exam then we can set the Target for Level Attainment or else during mid of term seeing performance of students in internal component, Teacher can set target
  • 19. Target for Level Attainment and Gap Analysis Couse Outcome Attainmen t Level for last exam Target for current exam Attainment Level of current exam Gap Gap Analysis C301.1 1.2 2 1.30 0.70 Performance of students in end semester exam is not as expected C301.2 1.4 2 1.27 0.73 C301.3 1.5 2 1.67 0.33 C301.4 1.8 2 1.48 0.52 C301.5 1.4 2 1.63 0.37 C301.6 1.3 2 1.50 0.50 *Target should be kept based on the performance of students in first and second Class Test but before term ends, so that Teacher will have sufficient time to work on delivery (if performance is on lower side)
  • 21. Program Articulation Matrix with Program Outcomes & PSO (to be done for all courses) [3.1 point in NBA SAR] Course PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 C101 3 3 - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - C102 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C103 3 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - C104 3 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - C105 3 3 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - C107 3 3 - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - C108
  • 22. Course Articulation Matrix [to be done for all courses of program] Course COURSE OUTCOMES [Statement] PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 C301 C301.1 1 1 3 2 2 - - - 1 - - - 2 2 1 C301.2 1 1 3 2 3 - - - 1 - - - 2 2 1 C301.3 1 1 3 3 3 - - - 1 - - - 3 3 1 C301.4 1 1 3 3 3 - - - 1 - - - 3 3 1 C301.5 1 2 3 3 3 - - - 1 - - 1 3 3 1 C301.6 1 2 3 3 3 - - - 1 - - 1 3 3 1
  • 23. Program Outcome Calculation  For Calculation of Program Outcome, we can use two method: (i)Direct Method (ii)Indirect Method  Direct Method: In direct method, we take CO attainment of all courses contributing to particular Program Outcomes and then calculate the attainment based on mapping (as per course articulation matrix)  Indirect Method: In indirect method, surveys from current passing out students (program exit survey), survey from employer (during placement), survey from industry person (if students are working as intern for some industry) to be taken. All this survey needs to be quantified [put questions like rate our students in the scale of 5 (5-excellent, 1-not satisfactory)] Indirect method too should be based on predefined levels Example; Level-3: 80% or above survey takers giving 4 or 5 marks Level-2: 70% or above survey takers giving 4 or 5 marks Level-1: 60% or above survey takers giving 4 or 5 marks
  • 24. Program Outcome Calculation [Direct Method] Co urse Course Outco mes Attainmen t Level Column A PO1 colum n B PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 C3 01 C301.1 1.5 1 1 3 2 2 1 - 1 1 - - - 2 2 1 C301.2 2.1 1 1 3 2 3 1 - - 1 - - - 2 2 1 C301.3 2.4 1 1 3 3 3 - - - 1 2 - - 3 3 1 C301.4 2.5 1 1 3 3 3 2 - - 1 - - - 3 3 1 C301.5 2.4 1 2 3 3 3 - - 1 1 - - 1 3 3 1 C301.6 2.7 1 2 3 3 3 2 - - 1 2 - 1 3 3 1 C3 02 C302.1 1.8 - - - - - - 1 - 2 1 3 - - - - C302.2 1.9 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - - C302.3 1.7 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - - C302.4 2.7 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - - C302.5 2.1 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - - C302.6 1.4 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - - Program Outcome Attainmen t 2.27 2.34 2.27 2.33 2.31 2.33 1.93 1.95 2.04 2.40 1.93 2.55 2.33 2.33 2.27 Here only 2 course are taken but for actual calculations all courses needs to be taken Calculation: PO1= (column A* Column B)/Sum(column B) This can be easily done in excel
  • 25. Program Outcome Calculation [Indirect Method] Attainment levels Survey Mappin g ColA PO1 ColB PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO1 0 PO1 1 PO1 2 PSO 1 PSO 2 PSO 3 Program Exit Survey 1 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 3 Employe r Survey 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 External Guide Survey 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 Program Outcome Attainme nt 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 Calculation: PO1= ColA*ColB/5
  • 26. Program Outcome Attainment [Indirect Method] 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 22 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 Program Outcomes Attainment (Indirect Method) Program Exit Survey Employer Survey External Guide Survey
  • 27. Program Outcome Calculation [Overall] Method PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 Direct Method 2.27 2.34 2.27 2.33 2.31 2.33 1.93 1.95 2.04 2.40 1.93 2.55 2.33 2.33 2.27 Indirect Method 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 Overall Attainm ent (Direct* 0.6+indi rect*0.4 ) 2.24 2.52 2.24 2.36 2.43 2.12 2.20 2.21 1.94 2.48 2.04 2.65 2.28 2.36 2.40 Here Direct method is considered to have 60% contribution and indirect method as 40% contribution Calculation: Overall Attainment= direct*0.6+indirect*0.4
  • 28. Graphs and Charts 2.27 2.34 2.27 2.33 2.31 2.33 1.93 1.95 2.04 2.40 1.93 2.55 2.33 2.33 2.27 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 Program Outcome and Program Specific Outcome Attainment Direct Method Indirect Method
  • 29. Graphs and Charts 2.24 2.52 2.24 2.36 2.43 2.12 2.20 2.21 1.94 2.48 2.04 2.65 2.28 2.36 2.40 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 Overall Attainment: Program Outcomes and Program Specific Outcomes
  • 30. Few points to remember  Outcome calculation can not be rigid, that is to say one can have ‘n’ number of methods to calculate  Only thing to remember is method should be properly justified  Also the method described in this presentation is completely based on my understanding. I have tried to addressed all explanation of calculation with proper justification.  Also if someone disagrees with the method, I am up for suggestion but no debate  For workshop or session on NBA outcome accreditation, send me e-mail on rravik.tiwari@gmail.com
  • 31. Consultancy for Software firm/company  The software companies who are into education software business , if wants to develops a software/ web portal for Course Outcome and Program Outcome Calculation, I can consult for developing algorithm and method  Write an e-mail to me(on title slide) for such work.