Benchmarking Academics Through Sustainab

Benchmarking: An International Journal
Benchmarking academics through sustainable assessment criteria: an Indian case

study
Bikram Jit Singh Rakesh Joshi
Article information:
To cite this document:
Bikram Jit Singh Rakesh Joshi , (2015),"Benchmarking academics through sustainable assessment
criteria: an Indian case study", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. 505 - 536
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2013-0006
Downloaded by Professor Bikram Jit Singh At 10:02 24 April 2015 (PT)
Downloaded on: 24 April 2015, At: 10:02 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 24 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 35 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Domenico Laise, Laura Marraro, Gianpaolo Iazzolino, (2015),"Metachoice for benchmarking: a case
study", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. 338-353 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
BIJ-01-2013-0005
Rateb J Sweis, Hala Jamal Al-Ghawi, Noor Abdel-Aziz AlSaleh, Zu'bi M.F Al-Zu'bi, Bader Y Obeidat,
(2015),"Benchmarking of TQM: the case of Hikma Pharmaceuticals company", Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. 488-504 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2013-0059
Naga Vamsi Krishna Jasti, Aditya Sharma, Shashikantha Karinka, (2015),"Development of a
framework for green product development", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp.
426-445 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-06-2014-0060
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

Token:JournalAuthor:AA36AC3B-A96C-4B7B-86F7-A68FCB6A157F:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of
download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm
Benchmarking academics Sustainable

assessment
through sustainable assessment criteria
criteria: an Indian case study
Bikram Jit Singh and Rakesh Joshi 505
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Received 10 January 2013
Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Sadopur, India Revised 22 May 2013
Accepted 21 August 2013
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to primarily emphasize on improvement of student’s academic
excellence through devising and implementing a competent Internal Assessment Criteria that
indirectly improves their results and passing rates in exams.
Design/methodology/approach – In present system, Internal Assessment Criteria has evolved as
critical factor having lot of margin for bringing improvement in student’s academics by redesigning or
editing the existing one, appropriately. Assessment criteria are re-optimized by strategic
implementation of well proved Six Sigma’s DMAIC approach.
Findings – It is a one of rarely seen effort to transform Assessment Criteria by identifying the
statistical relations between internal marks and external marks secured by students in an end semester
university exams. The proposed framework and its validation through an Indian case study, ignites
the application of this structured Six Sigma approach in higher education for necessary excellence.
Research limitations/implications – The whole work revolves around the Indian engineering
environments, moreover the case has been restricted and elaborate facts for only unaided (private)
engineering universities.
Practical implications – The paper can be utilized to stimulate thinking about the fine tuning of
Assessment Criteria through proven Six Sigma methodology in current Indian academic settings and
further safeguarding the interests of managements, students and society, simultaneously.
Originality/value – The formulation of upcoming challenges before Indian engineering system are
outcome of intense literature survey. Focussing on always neglected “Assessment Criteria” and its re-
optimization by statistical approach of Six Sigma is hard to found and has immense scope in future for
reaching at desired academic hikes.
Keywords Benchmarking, DMAIC, Business excellence, Inferential statistics, Internal assessment,
Unaided universities
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
Man is built by education, and man goes on to build the nation. In general, education
plays a key role in the realization of a nation’s potential and its aspirations for economic
and technological development. Because of this, there is always an extraordinary
demand for higher education among young people (Holmberg et al., 2012). Particularly
in India, millions of graduates are produced by the education system each year, and
Engineering is one of the subcontinent’s preferred choices of academic course during
the previous two decades. Engineering education in India has seen tremendous growth
since 1977, both in the number of students and the number of colleges (Mahapatra,
2002). The recent growth in Indian engineering education is overwhelmingly due to the
Benchmarking: An International
inception of privately funded educational institutions, and it has increased by such an Journal
extent that around 75 percent of engineering graduates are taught at some 3,000 Vol. 22 No. 3, 2015
pp. 505-536
private engineering universities or colleges. But it is also true that more than 90 percent © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-5771
of these have little academic autonomy and constitute only a small percentage of those DOI 10.1108/BIJ-01-2013-0006
BIJ ranked among the country’s top engineering institutions (Kumar, 2008). The Indian
22,3 industry has been known to complain about receiving unfit or raw graduates from the
unaided engineering universities which have mushroomed all over the country, and
this trend is bound to intensify the “scarcity of skilled manpower” in coming years.
This may be an interesting and useful aspect for academic researchers attempting to
pinpoint “Critical to Education” factors to cope with this unfavorable growing scenario,
506 which may lead to a future serious explosion in unemployment.
In the world, India holds the first position because of its population, and furthermore
the government of a developing economy cannot be in position to aid every institute or
university. During the years 2010-2011, the government has spent around 85 percent of
its annual budget, but still it lags behind many developed/developing nations (Kumar,
2007). Perhaps this may be one of the crucial reasons behind the rapid growth of
privatization in the large market for Engineering Education System. Now, the next
question is: why are the results of private engineering universities poor, and why is the
quality of engineers degrading day by day? The answer may be because of inadequate
infrastructure, weak student-teacher relationships, gaps in the teacher-management
relationship, inappropriate curriculum design and faulty Internal Assessment Criteria,
among others. Moreover, the lack of a feedback system and a communication gap
between student and authorities serve to ensure that students receive low grades
(Dill, 2010). It has normally been the case that universities simply check the results,
and if these are not up to expectations, then start blaming the faculty or students. If
asked about it, faculty members then in turn blame the management and the students
for the bad results, and so on in the case of the students. But no one tries to find a
solution to this unending problem without setting those responsible against one
another. Although there are a number of unavoidable constraints to unaided
engineering universities in India, there are still some initiatives that the management
can take to achieve somewhat better prospects for the students, for themselves and
ultimately for society.
One simple question that the universities can ask themselves is: “Does the existing
academic system work properly or does it need feedback or amendment?” Something
may be done to amend the running of the education system criteria to at least decrease
the impact of challenges. In the present study, the main focus is to find various factors
that affect student performance (especially in external exams) and an attempt has been
made to benchmark the concerned “Internal Assessment Criteria” for overall academic
growth. The aim of this paper is to safeguard the interests of the government,
management and societies, without threatening the students’ academic future,
alongside the rigorous educational constraints found in developing countries.
2. Literature survey
Researchers worldwide have analyzed various factors that affect a student’s
performance, and some of them have performed descriptive statistics analysis. In
2001, a study conducted by Chansarkar and Michaeloudis (2001) explained the impact
of age, qualification and distance learning on a student’s respective academic grades.
Sadler (1989) elaborated on student performance as a function of socio-economic
background and next linked gender, grade level, university location and type with
academic achievements. According to a case study in a private engineering college by
Brinkhurst et al. (2011), student performance in intermediate examinations is associated
with the student’s attitude toward attendance in class, time allocation for studies,
parents’ level of income, and mother’s age and education level.
Six Sigma is a quality concept generally used for the manufacturing sector, but Sustainable
these days its applicability also to the service sector cannot be ignored (Hoerl and assessment
Bryce, 2004). Several unique aspects that are different in an academic environment
and manufacturing scenarios are highlighted (Goffnett, 2004). A framework to
criteria
implement Six Sigma methodology successfully in an engineering college has been
drafted and the role of Six Sigma in supporting decision making in science and
engineering programs has been uncovered (Holmes et al., 2005). The significance of 507
incorporating Six Sigma concepts in education, including course content and
curriculum design, has been elaborated on by Mitra (2004). A list of unique challenges
to implementing Six Sigma strategies in a university has been generated by Holmes et
al. (2005). In order to improve quality in education, Six Sigma’s five phase methodology
DMAIC (define – measure – analyze – improve – control) has been adopted (Chambers
and Fernandez, 2004). In the Define phase, critical to quality flow down is established
and a SIPOC (Supplier – Input – Process – Output – Customer) chart is constructed.
Process capability indices have been calculated during the Measure phase. In the
Analyze phase, a fishbone diagram is generated to verify the different reasons, and a
Pareto diagram is constructed to arrange the problems in order of significance (Singh
and Khanduja, 2011b).
The impact of “Internal Assessment Criteria” on students’ learning outcomes
has been the subject of several studies. According to Stefani (1998), the word
“Assessment” has taken on a variety of meanings within higher education. It is a
process through which faculty grade students on the basis of different elements
such as internal tests, attendance, assignments, oral viva, quiz or coursework, etc.
Assessment enhances external accountability and encourages the students to behave
as per the pre-designed curriculum of an academic program (Rogers and Chow, 2000).
Unfortunately, greater attention toward various external factors moved us away from
understanding the central role that assessment play in educational institutions.
It is defined as an evaluation or appraisal of students and the existing academic
system (Wen and Tsai, 2006). Assessment is about making a judgment, identifying
strengths and weaknesses, good and bad, and right and wrong in some cases. It is more
than simply giving marks or grades, although that may well be a part of it
(Shahrakipoor et al., 2011). Assessment plays a crucial role in the education process as
it determines much of the work students undertake by themselves for the duration of
the program. Internal assessment explains the pattern, or plans how students and
faculty should behave and react during course time, and ensures a better
understanding of curriculum content (Agharuwhe and Nkechi, 2009). Assessment
should be seen as an intrinsic part of the learning process rather than something which
is just “tacked on” at the end in order to obtain marks. It should therefore be seen as a
vital part of the initial design of the course or module. Assessment criteria is basically a
distribution of marks or weightings to various concerned internal elements like:
classroom attendance, assignments, tutorials and lab work, etc. (Pollock et al., 2009).
The “Validity” of the Internal Assessment Criteria is a serious concern, highlighted
especially in Asian universities, as these usually frame the assessment criteria at the
start of university and then forget about it (Patil and Riemer, 2004). Year after year
students have been assessed based on these initial criteria, and nobody bothers to edit
them by taking into account the voices of students or the management. With time,
the criteria become both obsolete and a headache for students, and start to
demotivate them. These circumstances lead the universities or institutions away from
the overall academic boom.
BIJ 3. Problem formulation
22,3 From the literature survey it is obvious that a number of authors have written about
higher education, engineering, its scope in India, and the present status of engineering
in the country. Some have even highlighted different reasons behind the poor quality
of students, various root causes for students’ poor results, and further consequences of
the students’ and the management’s points of view. Various qualitative techniques and
508 methodologies are available for improving the student’s or university’s performance
(Reunamo and Pipere, 2011). But the application of the proven quality approach known
as “Six Sigma” in the Indian higher education system is still quite rare. It seems as if
Six Sigma’s structured approach has only recently begun to be seen in the Indian
education system. Many people talk about “Internal Assessment Criteria” and their
vital influence on students’ academic performance, but it’s rare see suggestions
regarding the possibilities of optimizing such criteria, especially through Six Sigma’s
statistical approach. Today’s growing engineering education sector falls under the
shadow of the following challenges:
• The quality of engineering students is of great concern nowadays.
• Unemployment among engineering graduates has become a major threat.
• Due to the large number of private universities and colleges, competition in the
education sector has been heightening during and since the last decade. Poor
quality causes poor placements for professional students, due to which
institutions have to suffer from next year’s admissions and many of them are
left high and dry as thousands of seats fall vacant. This phenomenon leads to
closure or merging of small trusts and eventually lowers the reputation of
engineering programs in society.
Because of these vulnerable circumstances Indian students have now started opting for
foreign universities as a destination for higher education. In 2006, 1.23 lakh students
have opted for higher education abroad and the figure goes up in 2010-2011, when
about 3.03 lakh students gained admission to courses abroad (Ayesha and Mustafa,
2010). The main reasons found for this trend are: poor quality of education, lack of faith
in the Indian higher education system, and social prestige, etc.
After reviewing the evidence, it has been strongly felt that our universities and
institutes now need feasible feedback in order to amend their rules, regulations
and criteria for sustainable working, and to lead to bright futures for students. By not
ignoring the above challenges, and in order to bring excellence to academia, the time
has come to do something in our internal systems without neglecting the interests
of the education system’s various stakeholders. In reality, universities’ results of are
worsening year on year, and it was seen that only the qualitative factors concerned
with institutes, faculties, students and management were viewed as responsible.
Necessary feedback was not given to the running of the system, and the system
therefore generates unexpected results for everybody.
In order to achieve better performance in examinations, a sincere effort to overhaul
our internal marking criteria is needed, as this decides many things and fabricates the
whole learning process during coursework. The time has come for inferential statistics
in which one set of data is compared with another and vital inferences have been drawn
for a better understanding of the data sets. The present work is an effort to compare
the internal marks (given as internal assessment to students) with respective marks
secured in external exams. It tries to correlate both, and found the actual impacts of
different internal marking parameters on external results, statistically. Six Sigma’s Sustainable
DMAIC approach has been utilized along with its tools to draw inferences for bringing assessment
sustainability to Internal Assessment Criteria and proved itself to be key to gaining
an academic edge.
criteria
4. Case findings
A case study has been conducted in an unaided private engineering university of north 509
India. By not ignoring the impact of bad result of students, the result of first year has
been decided to be analyzed through Six Sigma’s DMAIC approach, during which
only first three phases; define, measure and analyze have been executed to formulate
actual problem and its various aspects. The case is here by unfolded in terms of its
phases as below;
4.1 Define phase

Before reaching any conclusions, it is good to first thoroughly understand the given
education process of a university. For this, a “Supplier-Input-Process-Output-Customer
(SIPOC) Diagram” has been generated covering all the possible elements of the
existing system. For example, management, parents, society and governing bodies may
all come under Suppliers; as these bodies supply colleges and universities, students
and affiliated systems respectively to run the education process smoothly (see Figure 1
for details).
Similarly, students, university infrastructure, money/fees, management bodies, etc.,
are major input features of an education system. The process is briefly described with a
flowchart which clearly demonstrates the internal and external liabilities to be fulfilled
for the awarding of an appropriate degree. Students with academic excellence and
Management Vision Scheme/Syllabus Quality of Students Industry

Parents Mission Teaching Experience Government
Society Students Time Table Placements Self Employment
UGC/AICTE Teaching staff Publication of Papers Society
NBA bodies Infrastructure Classes/Tutorial/Lab Academic Excellence Nation
Affiliation Failure Skilled Persons to
MS NO Extra
Money Supplies other Countries
T1 Curricular
Staff activity Tax to Government
YES
Stationery Skilled Labour
Administration
NO Upliftment of Society
Oral
Management
test Employment
YES Consultancy
NO Research &
External
al Development
Exam
Exam
Supply
YES
Figure 1.
New semester SIPOC diagram of
university
BIJ experienced teachers may be the main outcomes of the process in focus. Finally
22,3 industry, parents, society and nation would act as customers of the end product being
processed in universities or colleges.
The pass rate seems to be a critical parameter for the future prosperity of any
university since it not only adds academic value to students, but it also helps to
facilitate better placements that ultimately bring renown and an enhanced reputation to
510 the university. To enhance the student’s performance in external university
examinations is the sole objective defined for the present study. For this, it has been
decided to analyze the university’s present results in order to gain a breakthrough.
There are almost 255 students in four engineering trades in the first year, the results of
which are taken into consideration. Out of these a sample of around 53 students has
been randomly selected to further focus on their performances in six different subjects
in the first year. The students’ results (against their names) is sorted subject-wise as
quoted in Table I.
All subjects carry equal maximum marks of 60 and pass marks are 40 percent
(i.e. 24). The resulting data has been generalized following conclusions (refer
to Figure 2).
In first year class, 22 percent of the students have failed in one subject and 6 percent
of students have not passed even a single subject. The distributions of marks
obtained by each student in six respective subjects have been plotted in a single
histogram as shown in Figure 3. Marks are placed on the X-axis and Frequency on
the Y-axis. It also shows average marks obtained along with the standard deviation in
each subject.
The graph explains how the electrical engineering (EE) subject has a lowest class
average of 9.59 and the manufacturing process (MP) subject has a maximum of 34.54
marks. Moreover, the deviation in EE is less (7.585) which implies that the maximum
number of students are obtaining marks around the lower class mean and hence
secured an overall poor result in this subject. By looking in greater detail we can see
that each subject is also checked for the number of supplies, and after drawing a Pareto
chart (see Figure 4), we found out that the EE subject has the maximum supplies (33.8
percent) and MP has the least, at 5.8 percent only.
At the end of the Define phase, EE has emerged as a bottleneck subject that must be
taken care of in order to bring about a paradigm shift in improving students’
performance during external university exams.
4.2 Measure phase

In this phase, students’ capability for achieving a pass mark has been judged as far as
the EE subject is concerned, through a Cpk study (see Figure 5). The lower and upper
limits have been fixed at 24 marks (pass mark) and 60 marks (highest mark available)
respectively. The class average in the EE subject falls at 9.52 marks and the deviation
among student marks is of the order of 7.62 marks. It has been gleaned from the
capability curve that around 97 percent of students are lying below the pass barrier of
24 marks. Because of such a poor result, the passing capability of students is coming
out as approximately – 0.63 and the overall performance index Ppk as – 0.64. There
seems to be a huge scope for capability improvement but this requires a critical
scrutiny of every aspect.
An Ishikawa diagram (or cause and effect) has been generated to measure the
various reasons for poor results in the EE subject (see Figure 6).
S. Applied Applied Electrical Communication Applied Manufacturing
Sustainable
NO Roll no maths physics engineering skill chemistry process assessment
1 75111003 6 12 5 37 2 29 criteria
2 75111013 2 10 1 30 6 13
3 75111031 28 43 30 43 50 51
4 75114001 0 7 0 27 1 12
5 75114002 5 5 0 42 0 6 511
6 75114003 0 1 0 25 6 7
7 75114004 18 37 10 45 48 47
8 75114005 6 14 9 36 10 24
9 75114006 29 45 25 38 43 45
10 75114007 17 36 9 42 30 38
11 75114013 2 11 3 15 16 37
12 75114014 24 41 12 39 33 52
13 75114016 11 37 15 27 24 45
14 75114019 0 7 1 30 2 25
15 75114020 1 7 2 24 0 0
16 75114022 16 29 9 34 35 48
17 75114024 0 8 2 24 15 35
18 75114025 18 31 11 28 2 40
19 75114026 19 28 8 24 24 32
20 75114028 0 5 1 38 9 33
21 75114029 40 53 24 43 50 38
22 75114030 4 28 8 33 24 39
23 75114031 24 44 18 31 35 42
24 75114032 2 30 12 34 43 47
25 75114033 0 12 3 36 6 31
26 75114035 24 17 11 33 14 34
27 75114037 0 2 0 15 0 10
28 75114038 3 24 3 24 16 24
29 75114039 2 9 6 43 24 36
30 75114040 Ab Ab 0 0 Ab Ab
31 75114041 14 24 13 43 32 38
32 75114042 1 14 9 36 26 44
33 75114043 5 18 3 33 24 38
34 75114044 0 1 2 24 4 32
35 75114045 44 38 20 34 32 47
36 75114046 42 25 24 28 35 41
37 75114047 5 15 2 33 19 48
38 75114048 0 2 6 34 4 10
39 75114050 0 38 13 45 43 0
40 75114053 26 35 16 34 46 40
41 75114055 0 8 0 15 2 24
42 75114056 27 45 12 39 32 43
43 75114057 19 29 14 33 24 44
44 75114058 8 34 9 43 42 45
45 75114060 26 28 15 38 32 37
46 75114061 24 24 17 48 26 50
47 75114063 5 25 5 33 17 30
48 75114066 13 14 11 32 20 41
49 75114068 46 37 14 34 41 45
50 75114069 15 30 4 29 29 42
51 75114070 36 38 16 43 46 50 Table I.
52 95114135 47 42 24 35 35 51 Sample sheet of
53 75114136 16 31 12 43 25 36 result
BIJ Students with One Supply
22,3 Students with Two

6%
22% supplies
15%
Students with Three
supplies
15%
22% Students with Four
512 20%
supplies
Students with Five

Figure 2. supplies
Pie chart of results Students with All Supplies
Normal
–12 0 12 24 36 48 60
18 18 Variable
Applied Maths
16 16 Applied Physics
Electrical Engineering
14 14 Communication Skill
Applied Chemistry
12 12 Manufacturing Process
Frequency
10 Mean SD n
10
13.85 14.09 52
23.62 14.20 52
8 8 9.596 7.585 52
33.63 7.867 52
6 6 23.15 15.49 52
34.54 13.88 52
4 4
Figure 3. 2 2
Comparison of
subjects (w. r. t. 0 0
Marks Obtained) –12 0 12 24 36 48 60
Data
Pareto Chart of Subject

140 100
120
Number of Supplies
80
100
80 60
%
60 47 40
40 37
22 22 20
20 8 Other
0 0
Subject
g
try
s
hs
rin
er
ic
es
is
at
ys
th
ee
m
M
oc
O
Ph
he
in
Pr
ng
ie
d
ie
g
pl
lE
in
pl
Ap
ie
ur
ca
Ap
pl
ct
tri
Ap
fa
ec
an
Figure 4.
El
Pareto chart for Number of Supplies 47 37 22 22 8 3

supplies % 33.8 26.6 15.8 15.8 5.8 2.2
Cum % 33.8 60.4 76.3 92.1 97.8 100.0
Capability Analysis for Electrical E
Process Performance Report
Sustainable
Capability Histogram
assessment
Are the data inside the limits?
Process Characterization
criteria
LSL (24 Marks) USL (60 Marks) Total N 53
Subgroup size 1
Mean 9.4151
5 1 0 SD (overall) 7.6270
SD (within) 7.7571
0 513
Capability Statistics
0 Actual (overall)
Pp 0.79
Ppk –0.64
Z.Bench –1.91
30 25 % Out of spec (observed) 90.57
% Out of spec (expected) 97.21
PPM (DPMO) (observed) 905660
10 PPM (DPMO) (expected) 972080
Potential (within)
9 3
Cp 0.77
9 Cpk –0.63
Z.Bench –1.88
–9 0 9 18 27 36 45 54 % Out of spec (expected) 97.00
PPM (DPMO) (expected) 969960
Actual (overall) capability is what the customer experiences. Figure 5.
Potential (within) capability is what could be achieved if process Passing capability
shifts and drifts were eliminated.
Cause-and-Effect Diagram
Motivation Attendance Method Personnel

Teaching Style
Teacher's Lecture / Tutorial
Willingness Attendance Listening Skills of IQ Level of Students
Students
Students Interest MST Attendance Student-Teacher
Interaction
Lab Instructors's Attendance in Effective Quality of Teachers
Workmanship Lab work Communication
Experimental
Management Attendance in Studies with
Policies Extra Curricular
Audio-Visual Aids Instructors
Free Lectures Attendance in
Sports Activities Guest or Expert
Lectures Poor
Result
Library with study Room
Practicals or Lab work
Self Study Hours Sports Facilities
Class Room Behaviour
Extra Curricular Activities
Out of Syllabus Teaching Assignments / Tutorials Labs with Equipments

Material
Quiz and surprise Tests Tutorial Rooms
Figure 6.
Old Edition Books /
Lecture Notes Mid Semester Tests
Class Rooms Fishbone diagram for
College Campus pinpointing reasons
behind poor results
Material Evaluation Infra structure
By not ignoring the present constraints, brainstorming sessions have been conducted
and the above reasons are divided into three main categories as
described below in Table II. In this, controlled reasons/factors are those which are
already in control or in a stable condition and do not need any attention. Noises are
those reasons/factors that cannot be controlled, do not give benefits in exponential,
or can be ignored.
BIJ Controlled factors Noise factors Critical factors
22,3
1. IQ level of students 1. Teaching style MST attendance
2. Quality of teachers 2. Listening skills of students Lecture attendance
3. Instructors 3. Student-teacher interaction Lab attendance
4. College campus 4. Effective communication MST-1
5. Class rooms 5. Quiz and surprise tests MST-2
514 6. Tutorial rooms 6. Attendance in extra MST-3
7. Labs with equipments 7. Curricular activities Assignments/tutorials
8. Library with study room 8. Attendance in sports activities Practical files
9. Student-teacher interaction 9. Teacher's willingness Viva-voice during practicals
10. Effective communication 10. Students interest
11. Experimental studies with theory 11. Lab instructor’s workmanship
12. Audio-visual aids 12. Management policies
13. Guest or expert lectures
14. Old edition books/lecture notes

15. Out of syllabus teaching material
16. Self-study hours
Table II. 17. Free lectures
Critical reasons 18. Extra curriculum activities
Last, critical reasons/factors are those which can provide substantial improvements
and must be focussed upon to achieve set goals. These factors are measured as the
main reasons for students’ poor performance in external results and must be dealt with
in order to bring about a renaissance. The brainstormed critical reasons happen to be
various internal factors that directly or indirectly decide the internal assessment given
to a student.
Next, an attempt has been made to chalk out the relationship between marks given
in an internal assessment and marks secured by a student in external exams (for the EE
subject only). The data on marks has been presented in tabular form (see Table AI)
from internal class records and end results. The Pearson Correlation between external
and internal marks comes out as 0.761 and reflects that both parameters are strongly
and positively related (see Figure 7).
It implies marks secured by students in internal assessments are strongly
influencing their performance in external exams. Hence it can be concluded, “Internal
Criteria of giving marks is highly impacting External Result.” So the internal criteria of
Scatterplot of External marks vs Internal marks

–5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
External marks
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
Figure 7.
–5 –5
Correlation between
external marks and –10 –10
internal assessment –5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Internal marks
mark-giving must be optimized (factors with a greater effect on external results should Sustainable
have high weightages in terms of marks) to further lure and motivate the students assessment
toward obtaining a good result in external exams. The existing criteria of internal
assessment for theory and practicals have been laid out in Tables III and IV.
criteria
These measured critical to performance reasons (CTPs) have been put forward to
the Analyze Phase for inculcating necessary optimization and sustainability.
515
4.3 Analyze phase
CTPs like: lecture attendance, mid semester tests record, MST attendance and
assignment awards are gathered from class registers. Similarly lab attendance,
viva-voice awards and practical performance record can be collected from lab registers.
All these CTPs are compiled in tabular form to conduct multivariate analysis
(see Table AII) because it is hard to study nine different factors separately. By using
principle component theory two components have been generated by using
multivariate tool (with Mintab16 software), namely, PC1 and PC2. In reality, the
principal components are linear combinations of the original variables calculated with
the maximum variance criterion (Singh and Khanduja, 2011a). The variance between
principal components is known as the eigenvalue, and only components having an
eigenvalue W 1 are significant. The plot between components and their corresponding
eigenvalues is called a scree plot (refer Figure 8).
Next, a loading chart has been drawn by taking PC1 on X-axis and PC2 on Y-axis
(see Figure 9). It provides information about the loadings of the first two principal
components with real world factors. It also highlights a fact about statistically similar
factors, since each line represents a factor and its slope and nearness to the other line
(or factor) show a similar variance pattern.
Item analysis has been executed to evaluate whether factors in a survey or test
assess the same variation or not. Variables with correlation values W 0.7 are often
considered to be highly correlated (see Table V).
The above statistics not only give the mean and standard deviation among
considered variables (factors) but also calculate the corresponding Cronbach’s α value
for each factor. As Cronbach’s α value for all factors is W 0.7, hence an authentic and
strong relationship has been indicated among various CTPs. A dendrogram has been
created by feeding data from Table AI (refer to Figure 10) and it displays the
approximate groups formed by clustering of observations against their similarity
levels. The height of Dendo signifies poor similarity and encircles identified suitable
groupings of factors.
Figure 11 strongly advocates the clustering of nine factors into only three groups,
for example, lecture attendance, lab attendance and MST attendance are in one group,
MST-1, MST-2 and MST-3 marks constitute the second group and viva-voice, practical
file marks and assignment marks compile into a third group. This clustering simplifies
the future course of the analysis.
Three matrix plots have been plotted among similar factors to visually assess the
relationship between every combination of items or factors (refer to Figure 11).
Almost identical scatter-plots have been produced among all possible combinations
of three differently grouped factors and hence it implies authentic grouping of factors,
statistically. Now, the nomenclature of various groups has been done (as described
in Table VI) and it also suggests different tools or techniques to be further used for
effective analysis of these groups.
BIJ
22,3
516
theory
Table III.
Criteria for giving
internal marks for
Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Sadopur(Ambala)
Internal marks criteria for theory
Subject name: Electrical Engg. Sem and branch: 1st A group Subject code: EE-101
Mid term
S. % Lecture Attd. marks (40%) tests Best of two Avg marks Class work (assignments/ Total (40
No. Roll no. Name attendance (16 marks) 1st 2nd 3rd (40%) (16 marks) tutorials) (20%) (8 marks) marks)
1 75114001 Abhinav
Das 50 10 2 a 0 1 3 14
2 75114002 Achhru
Kant 81 16 14 15 14 6 6 28
3 75114003 Alok Kumar 77 14 13 10 0 3 6 23
4 75114004 Amit Kanga 77 14 27 25 25 10 6 30
5 75114005 Amit Kumar
Singh 88 16 13 21 10 6 2 24
Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Sadopur(Ambala)

Internal criteria for practicals
Subject name Sem and Branch Session Subject Code
Viva-voice
S. % lab Attd. marks (40%) (24 1st (12 2nd (12 Avg. Viva marks (20%) Practical file (40%) (24 Total (60
No Roll no. Name attd marks) marks) marks) (12 marks) marks) marks)
1 75114029 Mandeep Sood 37 12 8 6 7 18 37
2 75114041 Raj Kumar
Munda 68 19 5 7 6 18 43
3 75114050 Sanjeet 69 19 10 6 8 20 47
4 75114052 Shabbar
Hussain Khan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 75114053 Shahid Ansari 82 24 11 9 10 22 56
assessment
Sustainable
criteria
Criteria for giving
practicals
internal marks for
Table IV.
517
BIJ 6
5.37230
22,3 5
Eigenvalue
3
518
2
1.41289
1 0.69062
0.51960
0.36931
0.24118 0.19635 0.14194 0.05581
0
Figure 8.
Scree plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Component Number
0.4 Practical File

Viva-Voice
0.3 Assignments
Lab Attd.
0.2
Second Component
Lecture Attd.
0.1
0.0
–0.1
MST Attd.
–0.2
–0.3
MST-2
–0.4 MST-1
MST-3
–0.5
Figure 9.
Loading chart 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
First Component
Item and Total Statistics

Total
Variable Count Mean SD
Lecture Attd. 53 12.91 3.73
MST-1 53 13.04 9.97
MST-2 53 13.89 9.95
MST-3 53 18.09 14.57
MST Attd. 53 2.51 0.87
Assignments 53 5.32 2.12
Lab Attd. 53 17.85 6.67
Viva-Voice 53 7.08 2.50
Practical File 53 17.25 5.09
Total 53 1 07.92 43.81
Cronbach’s α = 0.8281
Omitted Item Statistics

Adj. Squared
Adj. Total Total Item-Adj. Multiple Cronbach’s
OmittedVariable Mean SD TotalCorr Corr α
Lecture Attd. 95.02 40.90 0.7609 0.7691 0.8064
MST-1 94.89 36.12 0.7150 0.6137 0.7863
MST-2 94.04 35.80 0.7553 0.6775 0.7796
MST-3 89.83 32.51 0.6861 0.6650 0.8247
MST Attd. 105.42 43.22 0.6755 0.5691 0.8334
Assignments 102.60 42.78 0.4672 0.3634 0.8294
Table V. Lab Attd. 90.08 39.03 0.6749 0.8134 0.7962
Item (factor) analysis Viva-Voice 100.85 42.14 0.6515 0.8654 0.8209
Practical File 90.68 40.34 0.6468 0.9129 0.8054
Sustainable
assessment
Dendrogram
Single Linkage, Euclidean Distance
criteria
78.73
519
85.82
Similarity
92.91
Figure 10.
Dendogram for
grouping of factors
100 00
Matrix Plot of Lecture Attd., Lab Attd., MST Attd. Matrix Plot of MST-1, MST-2, MST-3
30
20
Lab Attd.
MST-2
10 15
0 0
3.0
40
MST Attd.
MST-3
1.5
20
0.0 0
0 8 16 0 10 20 0 15 30 0 15 30
Lecture Attd. Lab Attd. MST-1 MST-2
Matrix Plot of Viva-Voice, Practical File, Assignments

Practical File
20
10
0
8
Assignments
0 Figure 11.
0 5 10 0 10 20 Matrix plots
Viva-Voice Practical File
Group-1 Attendance. Multi-regression analysis has been utilized to assess the relative
impact of lecture attendance, lab attendance and MST attendance on the external
university result. The attendance data can be gathered from the class record register
of the EE subject and sorted into a table (refer to Table AIII) against student roll
BIJ Group Name Critical factors Tool/technique used
22,3
Attendance MST attendance Multi-regression analysis
Lecture attendance
Lab attendance
Mid semester tests MST-1 One way ANOVA for inter MST analysis and
MST-2 then orthogonal regression for average MST
520 MST-3 marks
Written and oral Assignments/ Stepwise regression (backward step method)
submissions tutorials
Table VI. Practical files
Analytical plan Viva-voice
numbers. External marks are also suitably siphoned from the gazette. The data
are first checked for normality with Minitab16 and was found to be perfectly
normal as demonstrated in Figure 12. The data distribution all lies along the normal
line in the first graph and there is no pattern formation in the second graph.
The frequency histogram ensures a normal distribution of internal attendance and
external marks data and the last graph predicts the sufficient size and randomness of
the sample taken.
Then, data are fed into the regression analysis and generates statistics as explained
in Table VII at 95 percent confidence level. The p-values for lecture attendance and
MST Attendance have come out to be less than the 0.05 barrier and hence concluded to
be statistically important as far as their impact on external results is concerned. Lab
Attendance has an 0.510 p-value which is rather greater than the α value at 95 percent
confidence, so seems to be non-significant for external theory results, and can therefore
be ignored.
Residual Plots for External Result

Normal Probability Plot vs Fits
99 20
90
10
Residual
%
50
0
10
–10
1
–10 0 10 20 –5 0 5 10 15
Residual Fitted Value
Histogram vs Order
12 20
9 10
Frequency
Residual
6
0
3
–10
Figure 12. 0
Normality test –12 –8 –4 0 4 8 12 16 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Residual Observation Order
Regression Analysis: External Reslt Vs MST Attd., Lecture & Lab Attd. Sustainable
Predictor Coef SE Coef T P assessment
Constant –10.482 4.365 –2.40 0.020
criteria
MST Attendance 0.07080 0.04808 1.47 0.048
Lecture Attendance 0.22756 0.08185 2.78 0.008

521
Lab Attendance –0.03769 0.05680 –0.66 0.510
S = 6.36405 R 2 = 33.0% R 2(adj) = 28.7%
Analysis of Variance
Table VII.
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 3 937.07 312.36 7.71 0.000 Multi-regression
Residual Error 47 1903.55 40.50 statistics
Total 50 2840.63
The lower value (28.7 percent) of R2 (adj) reminds the reader about the number of other
vital factors that can affect results directly or indirectly. At the end, the p-value (0.000)
of ANOVA conducted on the regression model is produced as <0.05 and implies
correctness of regression statistics.
While considering the sole effect of lecture attendance on result, the regression line
is plotted as quoted in Figure 13. The Pearson Coefficient is generated as 0.54, which
emphasises the positive relationship between lecture attendance and university results.
Regression for External Result vs Lecture Attendance

Summary Report
Y: External Result
X: Lecture Attendance
Fitted Line Plot for Linear Model
Is there a relationship between Y and X ? Y = – 7.791 + 0.2426 X
0 0.05 0.1 > 0.5 30
Yes No
External Result
P = 0.000 20
The relationship between External Result and Lecture
Attendance is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
10
0
% of variation accounted for by model
0% 100%
0 25 50 75 100
Lecture Attendance
2
R (adj) = 27.79% Comments
27.79% of the variation in External Result can be
accounted for by the regression model. The fitted equation for the linear model that describes the
relationship between Y and X is:
Y = – 7.791 + 0.2426 X
Correlation between Y and X If the model fits the data well, this equation can be used
to predict External Result for a value of Lecture
Negative No correlation Positive Attendance, or find the settings for Lecture Attendance
–1 0 1 that correspond to a desired value or range of values for
External Result. Figure 13.
0.54
Impact of lecture
A statistically significant relationship does not imply that X
The positive correlation (r = 0.54) indicates that when causes Y. attendance on
Lecture Attendance increases, External Result also tends external result
to increase.
BIJ It implies that as a student’s attendance in lectures improves (or increases), his or her
22,3 probability of passing the external exams also increases, according to the statistics
described in Figure 13.
Again, the regression line is plotted between MST attendance and external theory
result (see Figure 14). The Pearson coefficient is generated as 0.44 which indicates a
direct relationship between MST attendance and university theory result. It implies
522 that as a student’s attendance in MSTs improves, then his or her probability of passing
the external theory exams also increases as per the statistics detailed below.
On the same grounds, the regression relationship of Lab Attendance has been
calculated with Theory Result as appropriately defined in Figure 15.
Finally, the multi-regression model has evaluated an overall equation which
contains the effects of all the three types of attendances simultaneously on external
results as given below:
Overall Regression Equation

External Result ¼ 10:5 þ 0:0708 MST Attendance
þ 0:228 Lecture Attendance
0:0377 Lab Attendance
The magnitude and sign of coefficients demonstrates the relative impact of a factor on
the external result. The factor lecture attendance has a greater impact than MST
Attendance. The negative sign of lab attendance reflects non-significance and a rather
adverse effect on external results. Here it is worth mentioning that lab attendance has a
positive effect (refer Figure 15) when taken alone with external results, but in the multi-
regression model of multi factors its effect bears a negativity as the question of external
Regression for External Result vs MST Attendance

Y: External Result
Summary Report
X: MST Attendance
Fitted Line Plot for Linear Model
Is there a relationship between Y and X ? Y = – 3.268 + 0.1490 X
0 0.05 0.1 > 0.5 30
Yes No
External Result
P = 0.001 20
The relationship between External Result and MST
Attendance is statistically significant (p < 0.05). 10
% of variation accounted for by model 0

0% 100%
0 25 50 75 100
MST Attendance
R 2 (adj) = 17.39%
Comments
accounted for by the regression model. The fitted equation for the linear model that describes the
Y = – 3.268 + 0.1490 X
If the model fits the data well, this equation can be used
Correlation between Y and X to predict External Result for a value of MST Attendance,
Negative No correlation Positive
or find the settings for MST Attendance that correspond to
Figure 14. –1 0 1
a desired value or range of values for External Result.
Impact of MST
0.44 A statistically significant relationship does not imply that X
attendance on The positive correlation (r = 0.44) indicates that when causes Y.
external result MST Attendance increases, External Result also tends to
increase.
Regression for External Result vs Lab Attendance
Summary Report
Sustainable
Y: External Result
X: Lab Attendance Fitted Line Plot for Linear Model assessment
Y = 2.821 + 0.1084 X
Is there a relationship between Y and X ? 30
criteria
0 0.05 0.1 > 0.5
External Result
Yes No
20
P = 0.024
The relationship between External Result and Lab
Attendance is statistically significant (p < 0.05). 10 523
0
% of variation accounted for by model
0% 100% 0 20 40 60 80
Lab Attendance
R 2 (adj) = 8.17% Comments

The fitted equation for the linear model that describes the
accounted for by the regression model.

Y = 2.821 + 0.1084 X
Correlation between Y and X If the model fits the data well, this equation can be used
Negative No correlation Positive to predict External Result for a value of Lab Attendance, or Figure 15.
find the settings for Lab Attendance that correspond to a
–1 0 1
desired value or range of values for External Result.
Impact of lab
attendance on
0.32 A statistically significant relationship does not imply that X
The positive correlation (r = 0.32) indicates that when causes Y. external theory
Lab Attendance increases, External Result also tends to result
increase.
result arises. This may be justified as students who spend more time in four-hour labs
per week may be left with less time to prepare for theory exams and, subsequently, gain
a lower success rate.
Group-2 Mid semester tests. The complete MST data for the first, second and third
MSTs have been collected from a teacher’s record for the EE subject. One way ANOVA
has been applied to check the variation in the mean of three MSTs. The null hypothesis
(Ho) assumes no variation in the average marks obtained by students during MST1,
MST2 and MST3, whereas the alternate hypothesis (Ha) presumes unequal average
marks. The analysis of the variance (ANOVA) is summed up in Figure 16 with
variation of marks with in MSTs and among MSTs.
At 95 percent confidence level, p-value (0.109) is W 0.05 with lower value of R2 (ad).
So Ha is rejected and Ho is accepted. This indicates students are not so serious about
One-way ANOVA: MST-1, MST-2, MST-3
Source DF SS MS F P
Factor 2 555 278 2.27 0.109
Error 87 10635 122
Total 89 11190
S = 11.06 R 2 = 4.96% R 2(adj) = 2.78%
Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled SD
Level N
Mean SD ----+---------+---------+---------+---
MST-1 30
16.03 8.82 (-----------* ----------)
MST-2 30
17.70 8.49 (-----------* ----------)
MST-3 30
21.93 14.72 (-----------* ----------) Figure 16.
------+---------+---------+---------+--- ANOVA
14.0 17.5 21.0 24.5 (un-stacked)
Pooled SD = 11.06
BIJ MSTs and they may take it casual and do not prepare specifically for any MSTs,
22,3 etc. Figure 17 describes the results graphically by plotting an individual value plot and
box plot for MSTs marks data. The line joining the average marks obtained is almost
straight and hence supports no special variation or improvement in MST1, MST2
and MST3.
Each MST is of 16 marks (40 percent of total internal) and out of three MSTs best of
524 two have been considered. An average of these two MSTs is the final marks added as a
internal assessment of student. Next, to verify the impact of internal MSTs over
external result, orthogonal regression has been decided to execute. Data of MST
Internal has been collected form teacher’s record and put against respective roll
numbers of sample students with their corresponding secured External Marks in
university exams (see Table AIV). The data are put into Minitab16 and orthogonal
regression has generated statistics, as explored in Table VIII.
The variance in between MST internal and external marks has been defined with
error variance ratio 1.42. The p-value (0.000) is too short as compare to 0.05 value and
hence deduced MST as a highly significant factor, when a question of external marks
comes into picture. Scatter plot (refer Figure 18) with high positive sloped regression
line itself speaks its impact on performance of students in university exams. The
equation obtained has a high positive coefficient (+2.211) showing its great impact.
This conclusion is quite vital for students because in present case students are seemed
to be taking MSTs as for granted, which ultimately leads to their overall failure.
Group-3 Written or oral submissions. Under this category, assignment or tutorial
sheet marks, viva-voice and file marks have been grouped. Concerned data have been
gathered from attendance register and lab record file of EE subject and sorted in the
form of table against respective roll numbers with secured external marks (as shown in
Individual Value Plot of MST-1, MST-2, MST-3 Boxplot of MST-1, MST-2, MST-3
50 50
40 40
30 30
Data
Data
20 20
Figure 17.
Graphical 10 10
representation of
0 0
ANOVA results
MST-1 MST-2 MST-3 MST-1 MST-2 MST-3
Orthogonal Regression Analysis: External marks versus MST Marks

Error Variance Ratio (External marks/MST Marks): 1.42
Coefficients
Predictor Coef SE Coef Z P Approx 95% CI
Constant –5.46468 2.14562 –2.5469 0.011 (–9.67001, –1.25935)
MST Marks 2.21093 0.28104 7.8668 0.000 (1.66009, 2.76176)
Table VIII.
Orthogonal Error Variances
regression for Variable Variance
MST internal External marks 7.43182
MST Marks 5.23368
Plot of External marks vs MST Marks with Fitted Line
30
Sustainable
30
25
assessment
24
24
20
24
criteria
20 18
16 17
16
External marks
15 15
14 13 14 13
12 12 12 12
11 11 11
10
10 9
6
9
8
6
9 9
8
9
525
5 5
3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2
1 1 1
0
0
–10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Figure 18.
Scatter plot for
MST Marks
MST internal
Regression Equation: External marks = – 5.465 + 2.211 MST Marks
Table AV). The Backward Elimination Regression Tool is utilized to inculcate the
affect of above three factors over marks obtained in external exams, statistically. The
backward elimination method of stepwise regression starts with the model that
contains all the predictors (factors). Predictors are removed one at a time according to a
specified alpha-to-remove value (in present case its value is 0.1, see Table IX). As
viva-voice and file predictors (factors) have p-values W 0.1 and hence forecasted as
non-significant and can be ignored or these factors have least impact of external theory
result. For the backward elimination method, once a predictor is removed from the
model, it is never entered again. The model table displays the backward model
elimination results at each step based on the alpha-to-remove value. The backward
elimination table includes the coefficient, t-value and p-value for the predictors included
in the model at each step. The p-values are used to determine whether the predictor is
removed from the model or not. S is an estimate of standard deviation of the error term
in the model. In general, smaller S (7.01) signifies better fit of model over given data.
Mallows’ Cp is another statistic for assessing how well the model fits the data.
Stepwise Regression: External marks versus File, Viva-Voice, Assignment

Backward elimination. α-to-Remove: 0.1
Response is External marks on 3 predictors, with N = 50
N(cases with missing observations) = 1 N(all cases) = 51
Step 1 2 3
Constant –2.722 –2.492 1.696
File 0.04
T - Value 0.08
p- Value 0.940
Viva-Voice 0.71 0.78
T - Value 0.71 1.59
p - Value 0.480 0.119
Assignment 1.20 1.21 1.48
T - Value 2.05 2.13 2.69
p- Value 0.046 0.038 0.010
S 7.01 6.94 7.05

R2 17.51 17.50 13.08 Table IX.
R 2(adj) 12.13 13.99 11.27 Stepwise regression
Mallows Cp 4.0 2.0 2.5
BIJ Regression line has been drawn to find relation between assignment or tutorial sheet
22,3 marks and external marks. The coefficient value 1.479 shows substantial positive
impact of this internal factor on external theory result. Scatter plot has been pasted
in Figure 19 to make the picture more clear and obvious.
5.4 Result appraisal

526 The study has performed analysis of an engineering result by using inferential
statistics through Six Sigma strategy and further gives directions to optimized internal
criteria for necessary academic upliftment. During study, an internal marks data is
compared with external marks (obtained by students) and an effort has been made to
formulate relations among various internal factors and external result. More emphasis
has been put on to the existence of “Proper Internal Assessment Criteria” to achieve
internal and external breakthroughs for a given set of students, teachers and university
environments.
Any subject in higher education may constitute its theory and practical part. The
criteria of giving net internal marks is bifurcated into its various aspects or sub parts
like; internal theory marks are subdivided into marks for attendance, MST and for
Assignments, etc., similarly internal practical comprises of; marks for lab attendance,
file and viva-voice, respectively. As per Internal Assessment Criteria, weightages have
been given to theses aspects (factors) and performance of student is assessed on these
scales (refer Table X). After using the different Regression tools in analyze phase, an
appropriate equations have been formed among different critical internal factors
(CTPs) and marks secured in external exams. The coefficients of these equations reflect
their relative impact on external result and weightages should be given as per the
magnitude and sign of coefficient. Based on this, needed trend is suggested for a given
factor or to optimize overall internal criteria, suitably.
Following inferences have been chalked out from above study:
• Earlier MST attendance was not any factor and is totally ignored, but after
statistical analysis it has been found that appearance in Mid Semester Tests has
quite positive impact on final result of students. It is analyzed that students, who
appeared in all three MSTs have good result as compare to students who stay
absent from tests. So this factor should be added as a part of Internal Assessment
Criteria and must be given at least 5 percent weightage.
Scatterplot of External marks vs Assignment

2 3 4 5 6 7 8
30 30
25 25
External marks
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 19.
Assignment
Regression line for
assignments Regression Equation: External Result = 1.696 + 1.479 Assignment Marks
Existing
Sustainable
Category Critical factors weightage (marks) Impact coefficient Trend proposed assessment
Internal theory MST attendance 0% (0) +0.0708 Add by 5%
criteria
(40 Marks) Lecture attendance 40% (16) +0.228 Increase by 10%
MST marks 40% (16) +2.211 Increase by 15%
Assignments/tutorials 20% (8) +1.479 Increase by 12%
Internal practicals Lab attendance 40% (24) −0.0377 Decrease by 17%
527
(60 marks) Practical files 40% (24) p ¼ 0.940, Decrease by 20% Table X.
(non-significant) Transformation of
Viva-voice 20% (12) p ¼ 0.119, Decrease by 5% Internal Assessment
(non-significant) Criteria
• Total marks allocated to internal practical (60) seem to be high as compare to

total marks given to theory part (40 only). Factors related to practicals found to
be less vital for better external theory result, as compare to factors of internal
theory. Moreover, it is brainstormed that practical internal factors are not so
affecting (as per the weightages given) to external practical results also because
external practical only comprises 40 marks exam. So total internal marks of
practicals can be reduced up to 42 percent and shifted this hike to internal theory
part for required balancing.
• Weightage to lecture attendance has been suggested an increase of 10 percent by
taking care of its coefficient and initial weightage.
• As MSTs are highly related (+2.211) so, 15 percent increases in its weightage is
recommended.
• Assignments or tutorial sheet marks has second high coefficient (+1.479), so 12
percent increase in its weightage is prescribed.
• Weightages of practical internal factors like lab attendance is reduced by 17
percent as it’s not so affective for external results, statistically.
• Similarly, total files marks are reduced by 20 percent because of its non-
significance or over – weightage.
• Finally 5 percent decrease in viva-voice or oral test has been recommended for
sufficient balancing of internal criteria.
• Total Internal marks (theory+practical) remains 100. No changes have been
given for maximum external marks of theory and practical. So net credits of a
subject remains intact.
Above changes in internal assessment had been done by passing resolution in meeting
of “Board of Studies.” The changes had been put on university notice board for
students. These amendments have lured the students to work hard on factors (CTPs)
which are highly related with their corresponding external result also. Hence indirectly
the re-optimized criteria has not only helped to gain internal marks but also make the
students to work on critical factors which have ultimately lead to better passing rate in
External exams. During next semester, the passing rate in university exams has
been increased by 35 percent approximately. The supply rate of students has also been
BIJ slashed by 21 percent. So in straight words, one attempt of re-optimization of internal
22,3 criteria has ensured sufficient academic benchmarking and it is further recommended
to give necessary feedback to system for fruitful changes in future.
6. Conclusions
After independence, Indian economy has developed in leaps and bounds and so the
528 requirement of engineering education among society. This phenomenon gives birth to
commercialization of higher education and also inculcates its aftereffects like, mass
generation of poor quality engineers, because of non-conforming levels of education.
This work introduces the real picture of higher education particularly status-quo of
self-financed engineering universities. Literature review reveals responsible critical
factors for poor performances of Indian students and discussed various efforts made
time to time by academicians. In Indian context, Internal Assessment Criteria has been
erupted as most important but ignored factor for re-fabricating whole learning process,
sophisticatedly. It is a unique effort that constitutes comparison of internal marks data
of students with their respective secured external marks and draw inferences
statistically to mould assessment criteria which interns motivate students toward their
internal and external academic benefits. Uprising bottlenecks and hurdles in the path of
academic excellence has been quoted comprehensively and emphasis has been given
more on application of innovative quality tools like “Six Sigma” in academics. The
efficacy of Partial DMAIC methodology of Six Sigma has been proved by successfully
defining, measuring and analyzing the assessment criteria and further suggesting
valuable recommendations for its needed sustainability. In India, system feedback is
felt as missing useful link in higher education system. The voice has been raised in
favor of it after getting breakthrough improvements through Six Sigma approach,
during a case study executed in vicinity of an Indian university, itself. It provides a rare
framework to academicians and researchers. They can next explore other courses of
higher education also to achieve desired benchmarking in academics through
redesigning sustainable assessment criteria’s.
References
Agharuwhe, A.A. and Nkechi, M.U. (2009), “Teacher’s effectiveness and student’s academic
performance in public secondary schools in delta state, nigeria”, Stud Home Comm Sci,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 107-113.
Ayesha, S. and Mustafa, T. (2010), “Data mining model for higher education system”, European
Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 24-29.
Brinkhurst, M., Rose, P., Maurice, G. and Ackerman, J.D. (2011), “Achieving campus
sustainability: top-down, bottom-up, or neither?”, International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 110-354.
Chambers, D.W. and Fernandez, A.A. (2004), “The quality of learning”, Quality Progress, Vol. 37
No. 3, pp. 51-59.
Chansarkar, B.A. and Michaeloudis, A. (2001), “Student profiles and factors affecting
performance”, Int. Journal of Math. Educ. Sci. & Technol, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 103-104.
Dill, D. (2010), “Quality assurance in higher education–practices and issues”, International
Encyclopedia of Education, pp. 377-383.
Goffnett, S.P. (2004), “Understanding six sigma: implications for industry and education”, Journal
of Industrial Technology, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Hoerl, R. and Bryce, G.R. (2004), “What influence is the six sigma movement having in Sustainable
universities? What influence should it be having?”, ASQ six sigma Forum Magazine, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 37-45.
assessment
criteria
Holmberg, J., Lundqvist, U., Svanström, M. and Arehag, M. (2012), “The university and
transformation towards sustainability: the strategy used at chalmers university of
technology”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 219-231. 529
Holmes, M.C., Kumar, A. and Jenicke, L.O. (2005), “Improving the effectiveness of the
academic delivery process utilizing six sigma”, Issues in Information Systems, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 353-359.
Kumar, N.G. (2008), “Role for private universities in developing higher education in India”,
Current Science, Vol. 95 No. 8, pp. 1003-1007.
Kumar, R.V. (2007), “Engineering education in india-quality concerns and remedial measures”,
The Indian Journal of Technical Education, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 73-90.

Mahapatra, S.S. (2002), “Quality function deployment in an educational institution”, Productivity,
Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 418-425.
Mitra, A. (2004), “Six sigma education: a critical role for academia”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 293-302.
Patil, A.S. and Riemer, M.J. (2004), “English and communication skills curricula in engineering
and technology courses in the Indian state of Maharashtra: issues and recommendations”,
Global J. of Engg. Educ, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 112-120.
Pollock, N., Horn, E., Costanza, R. and Sayre, M. (2009), “Envisioning helps promote sustainability
in academia: a case study at the university of vermont”, International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 343-353.
Reunamo, J. and Pipere, A. (2011), “Doing research on education for sustainable
development”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 110-124.
Rogers, G. and Chow, T. (2000), “Electronic portfolios and the assessment of student learning”,
Assessment Update, Josey-Bass Publisher, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 4-6.
Sadler, D.R. (1989), “Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems”, Instructional
Science, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 119-144.
Shahrakipoor, H., Heidari, G.H. and Jamali, S. (2011), “Role of internal assessment on realization of
strengths and weaknesses of mechanical engineering department of islamic azad
university, qazvin branch (Iran) based on faculty members’ viewpoints”, Middle-East
Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 314-322.
Singh, B.J. and Khanduja, D. (2011a), “Does analysis matter in six sigma?: a case study”,
International Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 300-324.
Singh, B.J. and Khanduja, D. (2011b), “Introduce quality processes through DOE: a case study in
die casting foundry”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 8
No. 4, pp. 373-397.
Stefani, L.A.J. (1998), “Assessment in partnership with learners”, Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 339-350.
Wen, L.L. and Tsai, C. (2006), “University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online)
peer assessment”, Higher Education, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 27-44.
BIJ Appendix
22,3
Roll number External marks Internal marks
1 75111003 5 27
2 75111013 1 11
3 75111031 30 38
530 4 75111042 0 0
5 75112028 0 0
6 75114001 0 14
7 75114002 10 28
8 75114003 9 23
9 75114004 25 30
10 75114005 9 24
11 75114006 3 22
12 75114007 12 29
13 75114013 15 29
14 75114014 1 16
15 75114016 2 16
16 75114019 9 35
17 75114020 2 25
18 75114022 11 26
19 75114024 8 34
20 75114025 1 24
21 75114026 24 34
22 75114028 8 28
23 75114029 18 29
24 75114030 12 26
25 75114031 3 24
26 75114032 11 30
27 75114033 0 15
28 75114035 3 20
29 75114037 6 18
30 75114038 18
31 75114039 13 27
32 75114040 9 26
33 75114041 3 25
34 75114042 2 24
35 75114043 20 32
36 75114044 24 34
37 75114045 2 22
38 75114046 6 18
39 75114047 13 34
40 75114048 16 34
41 75114050 0 16
42 75114053 12 30
43 75114055 14 29
44 75114056 9 25
45 75114057 15 31
46 75114058 17 27
47 75114060 5 21
48 75114061 11 26
49 75114063 14 34
50 75114066 4 23
Table AI. 51 75114068 16 34
External result and 52 75114069 24 38
internal assessment 53 75114070 12 23
Roll nos Lecture attd. MST-1 MST-2 MST-3 MST attd. Assignments Lab attd. Viva-voice Practical
75114001 10 2 0 0 2.0 3 6 1 8
75114002 16 14 15 14 3.0 6 24 8 19
75114003 14 13 10 0 3.0 6 19 9 20
75114004 14 27 25 25 3.0 6 22 10 22
75114005 16 13 21 10 3.0 2 19 7 16
75114007 14 22 0 16 2.0 7 14 7 16
75114012 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
75114013 14 9 21 22 3.0 7 14 7 18
75114014 8 0 0 4 1.0 7 17 8 18
75114016 12 0 0 0 0.0 4 17 8 16
75114019 16 23 18 36 3.0 8 22 8 22
75114020 12 3 6 10 3.0 6 19 7 20
75114022 16 22 17 11 3.0 2 22 10 22
75114024 16 19 26 20 3.0 8 24 9 19
75114025 14 14 0 0 1.0 6 19 10 20
75114026 14 29 30 38 3.0 7 22 11 22
75114032 16 8 22 8 3.0 7 22 8 20
75114066 16 13 17 3 3.0 2 17 6 16
75111013 6 0 6 2 2.0 2 0 0 0
75111031 16 19 31 48 3.0 8 24 9 20
75114006 12 9 1 14 3.0 6 22 7 19
75114028 14 15 16 14 3.0 8 24 9 18
75114030 14 3 14 10 3.0 7 22 8 18
75114031 14 10 8 6 3.0 7 22 10 20
75114033 10 0 3 0 3.0 4 6 7 16
75114035 10 12 0 19 2.0 4 6 5 12
75114037 8 15 1 16 3.0 4 12 4 12
75114038 10 2 20 8 3.0 2 19 8 19
75114039 14 0 20 30 2.0 4 22 8 19
75114040 14 7 17 20 3.0 5 19 6 18
75114042 16 3 7 6 3.0 5 24 7 20
(continued )
assessment
Sustainable
criteria
Table AII.
Assessment record
531
BIJ
22,3
532
Table AII.
Roll nos Lecture attd. MST-1 MST-2 MST-3 MST attd. Assignments Lab attd. Viva-voice Practical
75114043 16 22 28 24 3.0 6 22 6 18
75114044 16 26 23 24 3.0 8 22 7 18
75114045 10 15 0 8 1.0 7 22 7 19
75114046 8 0 13 0 1.0 7 12 5 16
75114047 16 28 26 41 3.0 6 14 6 16
75114048 16 26 28 44 3.0 5 22 8 18
75114069 16 30 31 48 3.0 8 22 7 18
75114029 14 13 8 42 3.0 6 12 7 18
75114041 12 18 21 30 3.0 4 19 6 18
75114050 10 0 2 6 2.0 5 19 8 20
75114052 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
75114053 16 30 23 36 3.0 2 24 10 22
75114055 16 16 15 24 3.0 6 24 6 20
75114056 14 24 19 24 3.0 2 22 10 22
75114057 14 23 21 36 3.0 6 24 10 22
75114058 10 24 16 42 3.0 5 12 5 12
75114060 12 8 4 10 2.0 6 17 8 20
75114061 14 0 12 17 2.0 7 12 6 18
75114063 16 27 25 32 3.0 7 24 9 20
75114068 16 16 23 37 3.0 7 24 9 20
75114070 10 19 12 14 3.0 6 12 6 16
75111003 16 0 14 10 2 6 24 7 18
Roll no MST attendance Lecture attendance Lab attendance External result
Sustainable
assessment
75111003 66.7 82.0 86.0 5
75111013 66.7 10.0 0.0 1 criteria
75111031 100.0 91.0 84.0 30
75114001 66.7 50.0 10.0 0
75114002 100.0 81.0 85.0 10
75114003 100.0 77.0 68.0 9 533
75114004 100.0 77.0 75.0 25
75114005 100.0 88.0 66.0 9
75114006 66.7 63.0 81.0 3
75114007 66.7 72.0 48.0 12
75114013 100.0 79.0 57.0 15
75114014 33.3 42.0 58.0 1
75114016 0.0 67.0 56.0 2
75114019 100.0 87.0 79.0 9

75114020 100.0 62.0 68.0 2
75114022 100.0 84.0 78.0 11
75114024 100.0 100.0 85.0 8
75114025 66.7 71.0 67.0 1
75114026 100.0 75.0 78.0 24
75114028 100.0 78.0 85.0 8
75114029 100.0 78.0 37.0 18
75114030 100.0 72.0 83.0 12
75114031 100.0 76.0 82.0 3
75114032 100.0 87.0 78.0 11
75114033 100.0 54.0 17.0 0
75114035 66.7 57.0 18.0 3
75114037 66.7 43.0 35.0 6
75114038 100.0 57.0 68.0 0
75114039 66.7 71.0 76.0 13
75114040 100.0 73.0 69.0 9
75114041 100.0 66.0 68.0 3
75114042 100.0 90.0 78.0 2
75114043 100.0 83.0 76.0 20
75114044 100.0 90.0 75.0 24
75114045 66.7 59.0 76.0 2
75114046 33.3 47.0 37.0 6
75114047 100.0 86.0 48.0 13
75114048 100.0 94.0 76.0 16
75114050 66.7 53.0 69.0 0
75114053 100.0 81.0 82.0 12
75114055 100.0 89.0 81.0 14
75114056 100.0 72.0 82.0 9
75114057 100.0 76.0 85.0 15
75114058 100.0 58.0 36.0 17
75114060 100.0 68.0 59.0 5
75114061 66.7 72.0 35.0 11
75114063 100.0 94.0 85.0 14
75114066 100.0 83.0 56.0 4
75114068 100.0 81.0 84.0 16
75114069 100.0 94.0 75.0 24 Table AIII.
75114070 100.0 55.0 37.0 12 Attendance record
BIJ Roll number External marks MST marks
22,3
75111003 5 5
75111013 1 3
75111031 30 14
75114001 0 1
75114002 10 6
534 75114003 9 3
75114004 25 10
75114005 9 6
75114006 3 8
75114007 12 0
75114013 15 8
75114014 1 1
75114016 2 0
75114019 9 11
75114020 2 7
75114022 11 8
75114024 8 10
75114025 1 4
75114026 24 13
75114028 8 6
75114029 18 9
75114030 12 5
75114031 3 3
75114032 11 7
75114033 0 1
75114035 3 6
75114037 6 6
75114038 6
75114039 13 9
75114040 9 7
75114041 3 9
75114042 2 3
75114043 20 10
75114044 24 10
75114045 2 5
75114046 6 3
75114047 13 12
75114048 16 13
75114050 0 1
75114053 12 12
75114055 14 7
75114056 9 9
75114057 15 11
75114058 17 12
75114060 5 3
75114061 11 5
75114063 14 11
Table AIV. 75114066 4
External result and 75114068 16 11
MST internal 75114069 24 14
assessment 75114070 12 7
Roll number File Viva-Voice Assignment External marks
Sustainable
assessment
75111003 18 7 6 5
75111013 0 0 2 1 criteria
75111031 20 9 8 30
75114001 8 1 3 0
75114002 19 8 6 10
75114003 20 9 6 9 535
75114004 22 10 6 25
75114005 16 7 2 9
75114006 19 7 6 3
75114007 16 7 7 12
75114013 18 7 7 15
75114014 18 8 7 1
75114016 16 8 4 2
75114019 22 8 8 9
75114020 20 7 6 2
75114022 22 10 2 11
75114024 19 9 8 8
75114025 20 10 6 1
75114026 22 11 7 24
75114028 18 9 8 8
75114029 18 7 6 18
75114030 18 8 7 12
75114031 20 10 8 3
75114032 20 8 6 11
75114033 16 7 4 0
75114035 12 5 4 3
75114037 12 4 4 6
75114038 19 8 2
75114039 19 8 4 13
75114040 18 6 5 9
75114041 18 6 4 3
75114042 20 7 5 2
75114043 18 6 6 20
75114044 18 7 8 24
75114045 19 7 7 2
75114046 16 5 7 6
75114047 16 6 6 13
75114048 18 8 5 16
75114050 20 8 5 0
75114053 22 10 2 12
75114055 20 6 6 14
75114056 22 10 2 9
75114057 22 10 6 15
75114058 12 5 5 17
75114060 20 8 6 5
75114061 18 6 7 11
75114063 20 9 7 14
75114066 16 6 2 4
75114068 20 9 7 16 Table AV.
75114069 18 7 8 24 Data for backward
75114070 16 6 6 12 regression
BIJ About the authors
22,3 Dr Bikram Jit Singh is working as a Professor in Mechanical Engineering Department at the
Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Sadopur, Ambala, Haryana, India. He had done Masters
of Engineering with distinction in Industrial Engineering from the Thapar University, Patiala
and completed PhD on “Six Sigma” from the National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. He
had a three year professional experience as a Manager in Light Alloy Foundry at the Goetze India
Limited, a German Multi-National at the Bahadurgarh, India. He was undergone on the job
536 training on SAP (PP-Module), QS-9000, ISO-TS 16949, SQC Tools and TPM for two years. He had
worked as a Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering Department for two years at the RIMT-Institute
of Engineering & Technology, Mandi Gobindgarh, India. He was also posted as HOD-Mechanical
at the BBSBPC, Fatehgarh Sahib, India for One Year. Dr Bikram Jit Singh is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: chann461@yahoo.com
Rakesh Joshi is an Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering Department at the
Maharishi Markandeswer University, Ambala. He is pursuing PhD from IIT, Jodhpur. He had
done his BTech (Mechanical) from the Punjab Technical University In 2008 and MTech (CAD/
CAM and Robotics) from the Thapar University, in 2010. Thereafter, he started his carrier from
the Thapar University as a Lecturer. He had completed his MTech Thesis in Computation Fluid
Dynamics and published number of research papers in International and National Journals.
He had also conducted number of workshops in India on CFD and Fluid Simulations.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Benchmarking Academics Through Sustainab

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benchmarking Academics Through Sustainab

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benchmarking: An International Journal

Benchmarking academics through sustainable assessment criteria: an Indian case

Downloaded on: 24 April 2015, At: 10:02 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

Benchmarking academics Sustainable

4.1 Define phase

Management Vision Scheme/Syllabus Quality of Students Industry

4.2 Measure phase

22,3 Students with Two

Students with Five

Pareto Chart of Subject

Pareto chart for Number of Supplies 47 37 22 22 8 3

Motivation Attendance Method Personnel

Out of Syllabus Teaching Assignments / Tutorials Labs with Equipments

14. Old edition books/lecture notes

Scatterplot of External marks vs Internal marks

Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Sadopur(Ambala)

Criteria for giving

0.4 Practical File

Item and Total Statistics

Omitted Item Statistics

Matrix Plot of Viva-Voice, Practical File, Assignments

Residual Plots for External Result

Lecture Attendance 0.22756 0.08185 2.78 0.008

S = 6.36405 R 2 = 33.0% R 2(adj) = 28.7%

Regression for External Result vs Lecture Attendance

Overall Regression Equation

Regression for External Result vs MST Attendance

% of variation accounted for by model 0

R 2 (adj) = 8.17% Comments

relationship between Y and X is:

One-way ANOVA: MST-1, MST-2, MST-3

S = 11.06 R 2 = 4.96% R 2(adj) = 2.78%

Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled SD

Orthogonal Regression Analysis: External marks versus MST Marks

Stepwise Regression: External marks versus File, Viva-Voice, Assignment

S 7.01 6.94 7.05

5.4 Result appraisal

Scatterplot of External marks vs Assignment

• Total marks allocated to internal practical (60) seem to be high as compare to

The Indian Journal of Technical Education, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 73-90.

75114019 100.0 87.0 79.0 9

You might also like