NBA Accreditation and Teaching-Learning in Engineering (NATE)

N J Rao and K Rajanikanth

Module 1: NBA and OBE Framework

Week 4: Attainment of Outcomes (Keywords: Course Outcomes, COs, POs, PSOs, Attainment,
Quality Loop, Attainment Targets, Attainment Gaps)
M1U16: Course Outcomes 1
Recap
 Understood the role of taxonomy table in achieving alignment among outcomes, assessment and
instruction.

M1U16 Outcomes
 Write outcomes of a course and locate them in the taxonomy table.

Engineering Programs
 Graduates of Engineering Programs in India are required to attain the Program Outcomes (POs)
identified by the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) and Program Specific Outcomes (PSOs)
identified by the University or the Department offering the Program.
 POs and PSOs are to attained through courses, projects, co-curricular and extra-curricular
activities in which performance of the students is evaluated.

Courses

 Courses are broadly classified into core courses and electives.

 Core courses are Classified into Engineering/Engineering Science, and Basic
Sciences/Humanities/Social Sciences/Management
 POs and PSOs are to be attained through core courses, project and activities in which all students
participate.
 Courses constitute the dominant part of any engineering program.

Students learn well when

 They are clear about what they should be able to do at the end of a course (Course Outcomes)
 Assessment is in alignment with what they are expected to do (Assessment in alignment with
Course Outcomes)
 Instructional activities are designed and conducted to facilitate them to acquire and demonstrate
what they are expected to do (Alignment among Instruction, Assessment and Course Outcomes)

What are Course Outcomes?

 Course Outcomes (COs) are what the student should be able to do at the end of a course
 It is an effective ability, including attributes, skills and knowledge to successfully carry out the
identified activity
 The most important aspect of a CO is that it should be observable and measurable

Structure of a CO statement

 Action: Represents a cognitive/ affective/ psychomotor activity the learner should perform. An

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 1

 action is indicated by an action verb, occasionally two, representing the concerned cognitive
process(es).
 Knowledge: Represents the specific knowledge from any one or more of the eight knowledge
categories
 Condition: Represents the process the learner is expected to follow or the condition under which
to perform the action (This is an optional element of CO)
 Criteria: Represent the parameters that characterize the acceptability levels of performing the
action (This is an optional element of CO)

Two Action Verbs

 Some times it becomes equally important for a student to perform two cognitive
processes/sub-processes on given knowledge elements. Only in such cases, two action verbs are
used in a CO statement.
 It is not an artefact to combine two COs into one.
Example
Draw Bode plots for the given dynamic system and determine the gain and phase margins
(Drawing and determining are equally important and both processes are related to the same
knowledge elements of Bode plots.)

Sample 1
Calculate major and minor losses associated with fluid flow in piping networks
Action: Calculate (Apply)
Knowledge: major and minor losses associated with fluid flow in piping networks
(Conceptual and Procedural)
Condition: None
Criteria: None

Sample 2
Determine the dynamic unbalanced conditions of a given mechanical system of rigid bodies subjected
to force and acceleration
Action: Determine (Apply)
Knowledge: Dynamic unbalanced conditions (Conceptual and Procedural)
Condition: given mechanical system of rigid bodies subjected to force and acceleration
Criterion: None

Sample 3
Understand the effect of all the parameters in voltage controlled oscillators through simulation using
TINATI.
Action: Understand
Knowledge: effect of all the parameters in voltage controlled oscillators (Conceptual)
Condition: using simulation using TINATI
Criterion: None

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 2

Sample 4

Determine the root of the given equation, accurate to second decimal place, using Newton-Raphson
method
Action: Determine (Apply)
Knowledge: root of the given equation (Conceptual and Procedural)
Condition: using Newton-Raphson method
Criterion: accurate to second decimal place

Locating Sample COs in RBV Taxonomy Table

Knowledge Categories

Cognitive Design
Processes Fundamental instrumenta-
Meta- Criteria & Practical
Factual Conceptual Procedural Design lities
cognitive Specifications Constraints
Principles

Remember

Understand S3

S1, S2, S1, S2,

Apply
S4 S4

Analyze

Evaluate

Create

Exercise

 Write three course outcomes in the structure presented, from the courses you are familiar with,
and locate them in the RBV taxonomy table.

M1U17

 Understand how to write Course Outcomes of good quality.

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 3

M1U17: Course Outcomes 2
Recap

 Understood the structure of a Course Outcome statement in terms of four elements: action,
knowledge, condition and criteria.

M1U17 Outcomes

 Understand how to write course outcomes of good quality.

Number of COs for a Course

 Too small a number of COs do not capture the course in sufficient detail and may not serve
instruction design that well.
 Too many COs make all the processes related to assessment design and computation of
attainment of COs messy and demanding.
 A 3:0:0, 3:1:0 and 3:0:1 courses should have about 6 course outcomes.
 The number of COs of courses carrying different number of credits can be suitably adjusted.

Course Outcomes

 Attainment of course outcomes is measured through summative assessment.

 It should be possible to determine the attainment of a CO through the normally followed
assessment mechanisms without needing additional instruments.

Units and COs

 It is the practice of many Universities to present the syllabus of a course as a set of Units to
facilitate equal attention to all sections of the syllabus.
 There need not be one to one correspondence between Units of a course and the COs. More than
one CO may correspond to one Unit. One CO may correspond to topics from more than one Unit.

Dos and Don’ts

 Use only one action verb

 Do not use words including ‘like’, ‘such as’, ‘different’, ‘various’ ‘etc.’ with respect to knowledge
elements. Enumerate all the relevant knowledge elements.
 Put in effort to make the CO statement as detailed as possible, and measurable.
 Do not make it either too abstract or too specific

Check List

 Does the CO begin with an action verb?

 Is the CO stated in terms of student performance (rather than teacher performance or course
content to be covered)?
 Is the CO stated as a learning product rather than as a learning process?
 Is the CO stated at the proper level of generality, and relatively independent of other COs?
 Is the CO attainable in the given context (students’ background, prerequisite competences,
facilities, time available and so on)?

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 4

Acceptability of COs
 Students will execute mini projects
Instructional activities are designed to facilitate the attainment of COs by learners, but themselves
are not COs
 Have the concepts of compensators and controllers (P, PD, PI, PID)
COs are competencies / behaviors that can be demonstrated; not descriptions of internal changes in
the students (though these are necessary)
 Optimal Generator scheduling for thermal power plants by using software package in the lab
No action verb; no way of assessing; no way of determining attainment level; syllabus part is
rewritten.
 Will get knowledge of protection schemes for Generator, Transformer and Induction Motor
COs are competencies / behaviors that can be demonstrated; not descriptions of internal changes in
the students (though these are necessary)
 Apply problem solving techniques to find solutions to problems.
Too general; no clear way of assessing!
 Study variety of advanced abstract data type (ADT) and data structures and their
Implementations
Activity that the student engages in during the Course; not what he / she becomes capable of
demonstrating at the end of the course; the word “variety” is not to be used.
 Know the stress strain relation for a body subjected to loading within elastic limit.
Internal change; Not an action that can be demonstrated
 Students will be able to learn the structure, properties and applications of modern metallic
materials, smart materials non-metallic materials and advanced structural ceramics.
An outcome? How to assess?
 Students will be aware of base band signal concepts and different equalizers.
Internal change; Not an action that can be demonstrated
 Get complete knowledge regarding adaptive systems
Not an action that can be demonstrated; Internal change; Too ambitious to be realistic?

Exercise
 Write course outcomes of a course you are familiar with or taught paying attention to all the Do’s
and Don’ts, making sure all the items in the check list are taken care of.
Thank you for sharing the results of the exercise at nate.iiscta@gmail.com

M1U18

 Tag the Course Outcomes with the POs, PSOs, Cognitive Levels, Knowledge Categories
addressed, and the number of classroom/lab/field sessions.

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 5

M1U18: Tagging the Course Outcomes
Recap

 Understood the factors related to quality of Course Outcome statements.

M1U18 Outcomes

 Tag the Course Outcomes with the POs, PSOs, Cognitive Levels, Knowledge Categories
addressed, and number of classroom/ laboratory/ field sessions associated with the COs.

Tagging COs with Classroom Sessions

 Many Universities describe the syllabi of their courses in terms of 5, 6 or more Units.
 All Units are associated with the same number of classroom sessions.
 If one CO is associated with one Unit all COs are required to have the same number of classroom
sessions.
 Autonomous Institutions are not required to follow the Unit structure, and may have the number
of COs as decided by the course content and the teacher.
 Different COs may have different number of classroom sessions.

Tagging COs with Cognitive Levels

 As stated earlier, a CO statement starts with an action verb from one of the cognitive levels.
 The action verb enables you to tag a CO with the Cognitive Level. Use the acronyms
R-Remember, U-Understand, Ap- Apply, An-Analyse, E-Evaluate and C-Create.
 Occasionally a CO may have two action verbs. Then it is tagged by two cognitive levels.
 As there are no sharp demarcation lines between some cognitive levels, there is a possibility of
one Action Verb representing two different cognitive levels. One needs to use judgment in such
cases.

Tagging COs with Knowledge Categories

 A CO statement includes one or more categories of knowledge.

 CO statement itself may not explicitly indicate all the concerned knowledge categories. Some
knowledge categories may be implicitly addressed. The instructor needs to decide these
categories based on the proposed design of instruction and assessment.
 For example, in case of design activity, the CO may dominantly include procedural knowledge.
However, it may implicitly include the knowledge categories of Criteria and Specifications, and
Practical Constraints.

Tagging COs with POs

 Majority of the courses as they are offered at present, particularly in non-autonomous

institutions, generally do not address strongly any PO other than PO1.
 It is possible that PO2, PO3, PO4, PO5 are addressed slightly by some courses.
 Hardly any course addresses complex engineering problems.
 There may be some specific courses that address PO7, PO8, PO9, PO10 and PO11.
 Projects can potentially address many POs. But the POs addressed must get reflected in the

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 6

 rubrics used to evaluate the projects.
 Tagging a CO with any PO requires that the assessment includes items related to the identified
PO.
 Even when a CO of a course has the potential to addresses multiple POs, it may be difficult to
conduct necessary instruction and assessment to effectively address such POs, within the
available time and resources.
 Assessment items, related to several POs cannot be easily designed, and even if designed cannot
be used easily in centrally conducted and evaluated examinations.
 A Department can arrange for some activities outside the curriculum to address some POs.
However, the scope and distribution of these activities need to be carefully planned by the
Department.

Tagging COs with PSOs

 If the PSOs are written well there should not be any ambiguity regarding the PSO(s) addressed by
the course under consideration.
 All the COs of a course typically address the same PSO(s).

Kinematics of Machines - Credits: 3:1:0

Course Outcome POs/ CL KC Class Tutorial

PSOs Sessions (Hrs)

CO1 Illustrate the terminology of mechanisms PO1, U F 03 01

PSO1

CO2 Identify the degrees of freedom and motion PO1, U C, P 05 01

characteristics of planar mechanisms. PSO1

CO3 Predict the motion of planar mechanisms PO1, Ap C, P 08 02

graphically and mathematically. PSO1

CO4 Determine the friction losses in bearings, and PO1, Ap P, FDP 08 02

power transmitted in belt drives PSO2

CO5 Draw the profile of the cam for a desired follower PO1, Ap P, C&S 07 03
motion. PSO1

CO6 Describe the characteristics of motion in gears PO1, U C 04 01

with involute profile PSO1

CO7 Calculate the velocity ratio or number of teeth for PO1, Ap P 03 02

an epicyclic gear train drive. PSO1

Total Hours of instruction 38 12

Fluid Mechanics - Credits: 4:0:0

Course Outcome POs/ CL KC Class

PSOs Sessions

CO1 Understand the fundamentals of fluid mechanics and fluids PO1, PSO1 U C 6

CO2 Determine the basic equation to find the force on PO1, PSO1 Ap C, P 9
submerged surfaces

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 7

CO3 Calculate the center of buoyancy of floating body, and the, PO1, PSO1 Ap C 12
velocity and acceleration of a fluid

CO4 Calculate flow parameters using fluid flow meters and using PO1,, PSO1 Ap C, P 12
dimension analysis to predict flow phenomena, viscous
effects using Hagen Poiseille’s equation

CO5 Calculate functional losses through pipes and to calculate PO1, PSO1 Ap C, P 15
the drag and life, displacement, momentum and energy
thickness

Total Hours of instruction 54

Analog Circuits and Systems - Credits: 3:0:1

Course Outcome POs/ CL KC Class Lab

PSOs Sessions Sessions
(Hrs)

CO1 Understand the characteristics of linear PO1, PO10, U F, C 3 0

one-port and two-port signal processing PSO1
networks

CO2 Model one-port devices including R, L, C PO1, PO10, U C 9 4

and diodes, two-port networks, and PSO1
active devices including amplifiers, Op
Amps, comparators, multipliers, BJTs
and FETs

CO3 Understand how negative and positive PO1, PSO1 U C 4 4

feedback influence the behaviour of
analog circuits

CO4 Design VCVS, CCVS, VCCS, CCCS, and PO3, PO4, Ap C, P, 10 4

DC and SMPS voltage regulators PO5, PSO1 C&S, PC

CO5 Design analog filters PO3, PO4, Ap C, P, 8 8

PO5, PSO1 C&S, PC

CO6 Design waveform generators, phase PO3, PO4, Ap C, P, 6 8

followers and frequency followers PO5, PSO1 C&S, PC

Total Hours of instruction 40 28

Exercise

 Write course outcomes of a course you are familiar with or taught and tag them with Program
Outcomes (POs,) Program Specific Outcomes (PSOs,) Cognitive Level (CL), Knowledge
Categories (KC), number of Class/ Laboratory/ Field sessions, and present it in the table format
indicated.

Course Outcome POs/ CL KC Class Lab/ Field

PSOs Sessions Sessions
(Hrs)
CO1

Thank you for sharing the results of the exercise at nate.iiscta@gmail.com

M1U19

 Compute the attainment of Course Outcomes and close the quality loop.

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 8

M1U19: Attainment of Course Outcomes
Recap

 Understood how to write outcomes of a course, and tag each CO with POs, PSOs, Cognitive Level,
Knowledge Categories and the number of sessions.

M1U19 Outcomes

 Compute the attainment of Course Outcomes and close the quality loop at the course level.

CO Attainment and Quality Loop

Analog Circuits and Systems - Credits: 3:0:1

Course Outcome POs/ CL KC Class Lab

PSOs Sessions Sessions
(Hrs)

CO1 Understand the characteristics of linear PO1, PO10, U F, C 3 0

one-port and two-port signal processing PSO1
networks

CO2 Model one-port devices including R, L, C PO1, PO10, U C 9 4

and diodes, two-port networks, and PSO1
active devices including amplifiers, Op
Amps, comparators, multipliers, BJTs
and FETs

CO3 Understand how negative and positive PO1, PSO1 U C 4 4

feedback influence the behaviour of
analog circuits

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 9

CO4 Design VCVS, CCVS, VCCS, CCCS, and PO3, PO4, Ap C, P, 10 4
DC and SMPS voltage regulators PO5, PSO1 C&S, PC

CO5 Design analog filters PO3, PO4, Ap C, P, 8 8

PO5, PSO1 C&S, PC

CO6 Design waveform generators, phase PO3, PO4, Ap C, P, 6 8

followers and frequency followers PO5, PSO1 C&S, PC

Total Hours of instruction 40 28

Setting CO Attainment Targets

There can be several methods:

Example 1:
 Same target is identified for all the COs of a course.
 For example, the target can be “the class average marks > 60 marks”
Example 2
 Targets are the same for all COs and are set in terms of performance levels of different groups of
students.
 While this method classifies students into different categories, it does not provide any specific
clues to plans for improvement of quality of learning

Targets (% of students getting)

(< 50) (>50 and < 65) (>65 and < 80) (≥ 80)

10 40 40 10

Example 3:
 Targets are set for each CO of a course and for different groups of students separately
 Provides considerable details which can lead to specific plans for improvement

CO Targets (% of students getting)

(< 50) (>50 and < 65) (>65 and < 80) (> 80)

CO1 10 40 40 10

CO2 20 30 40 10

CO3 20 30 40 10

CO4 10 40 40 10

CO5 20 20 50 10

CO6 20 20 50 10

Example 4:
 Targets are set for each CO of a course separately
 It does not directly indicate the distribution of performance among the students. However, it has
the advantage of finding out the difficulty of specific COs
 

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 10

CO Target (Class Average)

CO1 70%

CO2 80%

CO3 75%

CO4 65%

CO5 70%

CO6 80%

Example 5:
 Targets are quantized into certain levels, 3 being the most common number of levels.
 Level 3: Class Average > 70%
Level 2: 50% < Class Average  70%
Level 1: Class Average  50%
 Aim is to attain Level 3

CO Attainment Targets for the Sample Course

 We use the method indicated in Example 4.

 It is fairly easy to use.
 It provides information on the difficulty of attainment of targets CO-wise.
 Improvements also can be planned CO-wise.

CO Target (Class Average)

CO1 70%

CO2 80%

CO3 75%

CO4 65%

CO5 70%

CO6 80%

Attainment of COs

 Attainment of COs can be measured directly and indirectly

 Direct attainment of COs can be determined from the performances of students in all the relevant
assessment instruments.
 Indirect attainment of COs (which is optional as per NBA) can be determined from the course exit
survey.
 The exit survey form should permit receiving feedback from students on all the COs.
 Computation of indirect attainment of COs is based on the perceptions of students! Hence, the
percentage weightage to indirect attainment can be kept at a low value, say 10%.

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 11

Direct CO Attainment

 Direct attainment of COs is determined from the performances of students in Continuous Internal
Evaluation (CIE) and Semester End Examination (SEE).
 The proportional weightages of CIE: SEE will be as per the academic regulations in force.
 There is considerable variation in these regulations.
 Proportions of 20:80, 25:75, 30:70, 40:60, 50:50 are all possible!
 Direct attainment of a specific COs is determined from the performances of students to all the
assessment items related to that particular CO.
 Hence, every assessment item needs to be tagged with the relevant CO.
 Also, we need data about performance of students, assessment item-wise.

Direct CO attainment from CIE

 Continuous Internal Evaluation (CIE) is conducted and evaluated by the Department itself in both
Tier 1 and Tier 2 institutes.
 Thus, both Tier 1 and Tier 2 institutions have have access to question-wise marks in all
assessment instruments in CIE.
 When questions are tagged with relevant COs, the department has access to performances of
students with respect to each CO.
 Hence, computing the direct attainment of COs from CIE is straight forward for both Tier 1 and
Tier 2 institutes.

Direct CO attainment from SEE

 Semester End Examination (SEE) is conducted and evaluated by the Department itself in Tier 1
institutes!
 Thus, Departments in Tier 1 institutions have have access to question-wise marks in SEE also.
 When questions are tagged with relevant COs, the department has access to performances of
students with respect to each CO in SEE also.
 Hence, computing the direct attainment of COs from SEE is straight forward for Tier 1 institutes.
 However, SEE is conducted and evaluated by the University for Tier 2 institutes.
 Thus the departments in Tier 2 institutes get only total marks scored in SEE and not
question-wise marks!
 Departments in Tier 2 institutes have no means of computing the direct attainment of individual
COs from SEE!
 SEE performance can not be ignored!!
 The only possible solution, though not satisfactory, is to treat the average marks in SEE as the
common attainment of all COs!!!

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 12

Assessment Plan for CIE (Tier 1 College)

 Sample Assessment Plan for CIE

CO A1 A2 T1 T2
5 5 15 15

CO1 0 0 5 0

CO2 2 0 5 0

CO3 1 1 5 3

CO4 2 2 0 5

CO5 0 2 0 4

CO6 0 0 0 3
Total Marks for CIE: 40

A1: Assignment 1; A2: Assignment 2; T1: Test 1; T2: Test 2

Class Average in CIE (Tier 1 College)

A1 A2 T1 T2 CIE
CO 5 5 15 15 Class Average
Cl Ave Cl Ave Cl Ave Cl Ave %age

CO1 0 0 3.3/5 0 3.3/5= 66

CO2 1.5/2 0 4.1/5 0 5.6/7 = 80

CO3 0.7/1 0.75/1 3.8/5 2.3/3 7.55/10= 75.5

CO4 1.7/2 1.3/2 0 3.1/5 6.1/9= 67.8

CO5 0 1.7/2 0 2.8/4 4.5/6= 75

CO6 0 0 0 2.1/3 2.1/3= 70

Class Average in SEE (Tier 1 College)

SEE
CO Class Average
%age

CO1 63

CO2 61

CO3 56

CO4 71

CO5 67

CO6 55

   

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 13

Computation of CO Direct Attainment - Tier 1 College

Attainment of COi in a course Cxxx = 0.4 x Attainment of COi as percentage in CIE + 0.6 x Class
Average Marks Percentage in SEE

CO CIE SEE Direct CO Attainment

Cl. Ave Cl. Ave 0.4 CIE Cl. Ave + 0.6
(%age) (%age) SEE Cl. Ave (%age)

CO1 66 63 64.2

CO2 80 61 68.6

CO3 75.5 56 63.8

CO4 67.8 71 69.7

CO5 75 67 70.2

CO6 70 55 61.0

Total CO Attainment - Tier 1 College

Computation of Total Attainment of COs in Cxxx =

0.9 Direct CO Attainment+ 0.1 Indirect CO Attainment

CO Direct CO Indirect CO Attainment Total CO

Attainment (Obtained from Exit Attainment
%ge Survey) %ge %ge (Rounded)

CO1 64.2 78 66

CO2 68.6 85 70

CO3 63.8 76 65

CO4 69.7 89 72

CO5 70.2 78 71

CO6 61.0 85 63

CO Attainment Gap - Tier 1 College

CO CO CO CO Attainment Gap
Target Attainment (Target –
%ge %ge Attainment) %ge

CO1 60 66 -6

CO2 75 70 5

CO3 70 65 5

CO4 70 72 -2

CO5 80 71 9

CO6 70 63 7
Gap > 0: Target not attained. Improvements must be planned to increase attainment next time.

Gap  0: Target attained or exceeded. Attainment target may be enhanced next time.

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 14

Closure of the Quality Loop-Tier 1College

Target CO Modification of
CO Attainment Action proposed to bridge the gap target where
%ge gap (%ge) achieved

Increase the target

CO1 60 -6
to 70%

Explain in detail the need for macro modelling,

and the models of BJTs and FETs.
CO2 75 5
Present the parameters of presently available
commercial devices

Present 3 more simulations of frequency

CO3 70 5 dependence of transient behaviour of feedback
systems

Increase the
CO4 70 -2
target to 75%

Demonstrate the effects of parameter variations

CO5 80 9
using mathematical models and Graph

Include 3 more open ended experiments in

CO6 70 7
waveform generation and FLLs

Assessment Plan for CIE - Tier 2 College

 Sample Assessment Plan for CIE

CO A1 T1 T2
5 10 10

CO1 0 4 1

CO2 2 3 1

CO3 1 3 3

CO4 2 0 2

CO5 0 0 2

CO6 0 0 1

Total Marks for CIE: 25 (A1: Assignment 1; T1: Test 1; T2: Test 2)

Class Average in CIE (Tier 2 College)

A1 T1 T2 CIE Class
CO 5 10 10 Average
Cl Ave Cl Ave Cl Ave (Rounded) %age

CO1 0 2.3/4 0.6/1 2.9/5= 58

CO2 1.5/2 2.1/3 0.8/1 4.4/6 = 73

CO3 0.7/1 2.3/3 2.3/3 5.3/7= 76

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 15

CO4 1.7/2 0 1.2/2 2.9/4= 73

CO5 0 0 1.1/2 1.1/2= 55

CO6 0 0 0.7/1 0.7/1= 70

Computation of CO Direct Attainment - Tier 2 College

Attainment of COi in a course Cxxx =

0.25x Attainment of COi as percentage in CIE + 0.75x Class Average Marks Percentage in SEE

CO CIE SEE Direct CO Attainment

Cl. Ave Cl. Ave (%age) 0.25 CIE Cl. Ave + 0.75 SEE Cl. Ave
(%age) (Same value is assumed for all COs) (%age)

CO1 58 63 61.75

CO2 73 63 65.50

CO3 76 63 66.25

CO4 73 63 65.50

CO5 55 63 61.00

CO6 70 63 64.75

Total CO Attainment - Tier 2 College

Computation of Attainment of COs in Cxxx =

0.9 x Direct CO Attainment+ 0.1 x Indirect CO Attainment

CO Direct CO Attainment Indirect CO Attainment Total CO

%ge (Obtained from Exit Attainment
Survey) %ge (Rounded) %ge

CO1 61.75 78 63

CO2 65.50 85 67

CO3 66.25 76 67

CO4 65.50 89 68

CO5 61.00 78 63

CO6 64.75 85 67

CO Attainment Gap - Tier 2 College

CO CO Target Total CO Attainment %ge CO Attainment Gap

%ge (Target – Attainment) %ge

CO1 60 63 -3

CO2 75 67 8

CO3 70 67 3

CO4 70 68 2

CO5 80 63 17

CO6 70 67 3
Gap > 0: Target not attained. Improvements must be planned to increase attainment next time.

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 16

Gap  0: Target attained or exceeded. Attainment target may be enhanced next time.

Closure of the Quality Loop-Tier 2 College

Target CO Modification of
CO Attainment Action proposed to bridge the gap target where
%ge gap (%ge) achieved

CO1 60 -3 Increase the target

to 65%

CO2 75 8 Explain in detail the need for macro modelling, and the
models of BJTs and FETs.
Present the parameters of presently available
commercial devices

CO3 70 3 Present more simulations of frequency dependence of

transient behaviour of feedback systems

CO4 70 2 Work out 5 more examples of amplifier and regulator

design

CO5 80 17 Demonstrate the effects of parameter variations using

mathematical models and Graph

CO6 70 3 Include 3 more open ended experiments in waveform

generation and FLLs

Action Plans for Improving the CO Attainments

 Action plans need to be as specific as possible.

 Indicate if any additional resources (Physical resources, Learning resources) are required to
implement the improvement plans.
 Indicate if any changes in the Lesson Plan are required.
 Avoid vague statements like “Motivate the students”, “Work harder”.
 If possible, have the action plans reviewed by peers.

Increasing CO Attainment Targets

 CO attainment targets, quantized into levels, are increased by increasing the targets associated
with the levels.
Example:

Original Targets Increased Targets

Level 3 Class Average > 70% Class Average > 75%

Level 2 50% < Class Average  70% 60% < Class Average  75%

Level 1 Class Average  50% Class Average  60%

Conclusions

No unique way of:

 Setting the targets for the attainments of COs
 Computing the attainments of COs
 Increasing the attainment targets

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 17

 Planning for improvements in the attainments of COs
Focus is to present evidence-based demonstration that the department is striving to improve the
attainments of COs and is achieving better attainments of COs with each succeeding batch of
students.

Exercise

 Set CO attainment targets, compute CO attainment, and plan for improvement of learning for the
course you have the Course Outcomes. Use hypothetical numbers if you do not have access to
the actual data.

M1U20

 Compute the attainment POs and PSOs and close the quality loop around POs and PSOs

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 18

M1U20: Attainment of POs and PSOs
Recap

 Understood how to set targets and compute the attainments of Course Outcomes and close the
quality loop at the course level.

M1U20 Outcomes

 Set targets and compute the attainments of POs and PSOs and close the quality loop at the
Program level.

POs and PSOs

POs and PSOs are/can be addressed through:
 Core courses
 Projects (Major and Mini)
 Seminars / Presentations
 Internships
 Co-curricular and Extra-curricular Activities
 For any activity to be considered for computing the attainment of POs/PSOs, all students of a
program are required to participate in that activity.
 For activities to be included for computing attainment, the related student performances should
be measurable.
 Electives play an important role in providing depth and contribute to the attainment of POs/PSOs.
However, they are not considered for computing the attainments of POs/PSOs as all students
may not be crediting them.

PO/PSO Attainment and Quality Loop

COs-POs and PSOs

 POs and PSOs are attained mainly through Core Courses.
 Each Course Outcome addresses a sub-set of POs and PSOs to varying levels (strengths) (1, 2 or 3).
 Sometimes we may apriori determine the POs/ PSOs a Course should address, and the COs have
to be written to meet the identified POs/PSOs.

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 19

Strength of CO-PO/PSO Mapping
 Attainment of a PO/PSO depends both on the attainment levels of associated COs and the
strengths to which it is mapped
 It is necessary to determine the level (mapping strength) at which a particular PO/PSO is
addressed by the course.
 Strength of mapping is defined at three levels: Low (1), Medium (2) and Strong (3).
 Several methods can be worked to determine the strength of a PO/PSO, but implementing them
across a few hundred courses can become a burden.

A simple method is to relate the level of mapping to a PO with the number of hours devoted to the COs
which address that PO.
 If >40 % of classroom sessions/tutorials/lab hours address a particular PO, it is considered that
the PO is addressed at Level 3.
 If 25% to 40% of classroom sessions/tutorials/lab hours address a particular PO, it is considered
that the PO is addressed at Level 2.
 If 5% to 25% of classroom sessions/tutorials/lab hours address a particular PO, it is considered
that the PO is addressed at Level 1.
 If < 5% of classroom sessions /tutorials/lab hours address a particular PO, it is considered that
the PO is not addressed.

Analog Circuits and Systems - Credits: 3:0:1

Course Outcome POs/ CL KC Class Lab

PSOs Sessions Sessions
(Hrs)

CO1 Understand the characteristics of linear PO1, PO10, U F, C 3 0

one-port and two-port signal processing PSO1
networks

CO2 Model one-port devices including R, L, C PO1, PO10, U C 9 4

and diodes, two-port networks, and PSO1
active devices including amplifiers, Op
Amps, comparators, multipliers, BJTs
and FETs

CO3 Understand how negative and positive PO1, PSO1 U C 4 4

feedback influence the behaviour of
analog circuits

CO4 Design VCVS, CCVS, VCCS, CCCS, and PO3, PO4, Ap C, P, 10 4

DC and SMPS voltage regulators PO5, PSO1 C&S, PC

CO5 Design analog filters PO3, PO4, Ap C, P, 8 8

PO5, PSO1 C&S, PC

CO6 Design waveform generators, phase PO3, PO4, Ap C, P, 6 8

followers and frequency followers PO5, PSO1 C&S, PC

Total Hours of instruction 40 28

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 20

POs/PSOs addressed by COs

PO/PSO COs Total Number of Sessions

PO1 CO1, CO3 3 + 8 = 11

PO2 CO2 13

PO3 CO4, CO5, CO6 14 + 16 + 14 = 44

PO4 CO4, CO5, CO6 14 + 16 + 14 = 44

PO5 CO4, CO5, CO6 14 + 16 + 14 = 44

PO10 CO1, CO2 3 + 13 = 16

PSO1 CO1, CO2, CO3, CO4, CO5, CO6 3 + 13 + 8 + 14 + 16 + 14 = 68

Course – PO/PSO Mapping Strength

Number of Sessions Devoted PO/PSO Mapping strength

11 of 68 (16%) PO1 1

13 of 68 (19%) PO2 1

44 of 68 (65%) PO3 3

44 of 68 (65%) PO4 3

44 of 68 (65%) PO5 3

16 of 68 (24%) PO10 1

68 of 68 (100%) PSO1 3

Course-POs/PSO Mapping

PO PSO
Course C302
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2

Mapping Strength 1 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0

Alternative Method of CO-PO/PSO Mapping

 The present version of software used for uploading SAR, expects individual CO-PO/PSO mapping
entries. Then, it calculates the Course – PO/PSO mapping strengths automatically, by computing
the average mapping strengths.
 It is possible to compute mapping strengths as discussed already and enter the mapping values.
 Alternatively, teacher can estimate the mapping strengths between specific COs and POs/PSOs
based on her subjective perception, taking into account the number of class sessions, as well as
the nature of the course content. Such estimated values can be entered into the system.

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 21

Example (Showing only non-zero mapping entries):

CO PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO 10 PSO1

CO1 1 1 2

CO2 2 1 3

CO3 3 3

CO4 3 3 2 3

CO5 2 2 3 2

CO6 2 2 3 3

Average 2 2 2.3 2.3 2.7 1 2.7

Mapping Strength 2 2 2.3 2.3 2.7 1 2.7

Mapping Strengths of PO6, PO7, PO8, PO9, PO11, PO12, and PSO2 are equal to 0 in this course
We will use the first method for the present.
PO/PSO Attainment

 Attainment of PO/PSO = (Average of attainments of relevant COs) x Scale Factor

 Scale Factor = (Actual Mapping Strength / Maximum Possible Mapping Strength)
= Actual Mapping Strength / 3

Total CO Attainment - Tier 2 College

(Example from the earlier Module 1 Unit 19)

CO Total CO Attainment

(Rounded) %ge

CO1 63

CO2 67

CO3 67

CO4 68

CO5 63

CO6 67

   

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 22

POs/PSOs Attainment

PO COs Mapping PO/PSO Attainment (Rounded)

Strength Percentage

PO1 CO1, CO3 1 (1/3) [(63 + 67)/2] = 22

PO2 CO2 1 (1/3) (67) = 22

PO3 CO4, CO5, CO6 3 (3/3) [(68 + 63 + 67)/3] = 66

PO4 CO4, CO5, CO6 3 (3/3) [(68 + 63 + 67)/3] = 66

PO5 CO4, CO5, CO6 3 (3/3) [(68 + 63 + 67)/3] = 66

PO10 CO1, CO2 1 (1/3) [(63 + 67)/2] = 22

PSO1 All the 6 COs 3 (3/3)[(63 + 67 + 67 + 68 + 63 + 67)/6]=66

Mapping Strength and Attainment of PO/PSO

PO PSO
Course C302
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2

Mapping Strength 1 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0

Attainment 22 22 66 66 66 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 66 0

Direct Attainments of POs and PSOs

 Attainments of PO and PSO are normalized to 1.

 Attainments are calculated for all core activities including courses, Seminars, Project(s).
 Performance in any co-curricular and extra-curricular activity which is evaluated as per declared
rubrics is also treated as a course.
 Then, the average attainments of POs and PSOs are computed.
(Note: The present version of the software used for uploading SAR, uses the number of
non-zero entries in a column to compute the average automatically. Future versions may
change this procedure.)

POs PSOs
Course
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2

C101 0.22 0.33 0.85 0.25 0.15 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0.76 0

... ... ...

C302 0.22 0.22 0.66 0.66 0.66 0 0 0 0 0.22 0 0 0.66 0

... ... ...

C806
0.86 0.82 0.94 0.74 0.84 0.67 0.61 0.21 0.31 0.77 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.79
(Project)

Average
Direct 0.69 0.71 0.67 … … … … … … … … … 0.82 0.78
Attainment

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 23

Total Attainments of POs and PSOs

 Determine the Indirect Attainment based on all the relevant Surveys. (Graduate Exit Survey,
Alumni Survey, Employer Survey)
 Combine the Direct Attainment with the Indirect Attainment using suitable weights. Typical
values are 0.8 and 0.2.
Total Attainment of a PO / PSO = 0.8 * Direct Attainment + 0.2 * Indirect Attainment

Example

PO10:
Direct Attainment based on all relevant academic activities: 0.25
Indirect Attainment based on all relevant surveys: 0.35
Combining them, the total attainment of PO10, for this batch of students is:
(0.8 x 0.25) + (0.2 x 0.35) = 0.27
 Repeat this type of calculation for all POs and PSOs.

Setting Targets for POs and PSOs

 Set the attainment targets with consideration.

 Among the POs, probably only PO1 is addressed well.
 Not many POs from PO6 to PO12 are addressed directly by most of the programs.
 There need not be any concern if the target for a PO is quite low, for example, 0.3.
 All PSOs are generally addressed well. Thus, the targets can be reasonably high. For example,
realistic targets of 0.6 and above are feasible.
 Absolute targets are of less concern than continual improvement.

Closing the Quality Loop at the Program Level

For each PO and PSO:

 Set the attainment target
 Determine the total attainment value
 Close the quality loop

o If Attainment < Target, then Plan improvement actions

o If Attainment ≥ Target, then increase the target realistically

 Wide choice exists for improvement plans (Semester, Course / Activity)

Example

PO10

Combined Attainment 0.25

Target 0.35

Attainment Gap 0.10

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 24

Improvement Action Plan:

 Add an extra communications lab in the third semester as a value-added core course

 Introduce a seminar starting from third semester

 Add in the 4th Semester, a 5-day workshop on communication skills

Conclusions

 Determining the strength to which a PO/PSO is addressed, and computing the attainment are
approximations at best!
 Even if a more precise computation of PO/PSO attainment is possible the effort involved may not
be worth it.
 What is important is to follow one method across an Institute, strive for continual improvement in
attainment, and demonstrate the improvements with evidence.

Exercise

 Set realistic attainment targets for POs and PSOs, compute their attainments, and plan for
improvements of their attainments for the program for which you are working.
Use hypothetical numbers if you do not have access to the actual data.

M2

 Module 2 presents Instructional System Design of an engineering course in the framework

provided by NBA.

NATE-Module 1-Week-4 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 25