Graphical Representation Based On QNM & QLM

9/29/22, 10:56 AM Graphical Representation based on QnM & QlM
NAAC
Institutional Assessment and Accreditation
(Effective from July 2017)
Accreditation - (Cycle: 1)
R. T. E SOCIETY'S RURAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE,

HULKOTI, HULKOTI, Karnataka
Track ID : KACOGN111231
AISHE-ID : C-1372
Graphical Representation based on Quantitative

& Qualitative Metrics
https://assessmentonline.naac.gov.in/public/index.php/hei/hei_graph_report/eyJpdiI6InZEd1lsaTBpWk5mb2JXYnBFOUUyaUE9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoibGgrUW1YdWZHeTEzUnJNeEFoNWRoQT09IiwibWFjIjoiYWIwNDM… 1/16
NATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATION COUNCIL

An Autonomous Institution of the University Grants Commission
P.O. Box No. 1075, Nagarbhavi, Bengaluru - 560 072, INDIA
Graphical Representation based on Quantitative &

Qualitative Metrics
Metrics(QnM & QlM) Weightage scored by the institution in percentage
Curricular Aspects
100
QnM & QlM Weightage scored by
the institution in percentage
Institutional Values Teaching-learning
and Best Practices and Evaluation
50
Governance, Research,
Leadership and Innovations and
Management Extension
Infrastructure and
Student Support
Learning
and Progression
Resources
Fig: The criterion wise distribution of weighted scores (QnM & QlM) for the institution
9/29/22, 10:56 AM
Cu
rr
ic
ul
Ac ar GPA
ad Pla 0
1
2
3
4
5
em nn
i
Fe ic F ng
le …
Ca ed x
te bac ibi
rin k lity
Te g S
ac to yst
he St em
St r ud
ud Pr en
en ofi t…
St t le
ud Pe an
en rfo d
…
Re t S rm
so ati an
ur sf c…
c ac
Ex e ti
te Mo on…
ns bi
io liz
n a
Ac ti…
Co tiv
Ph lla itie
Li y b s
br sic ora
ar al ti
y Fa on
as ci
lit
IT a L ie
e
M In
fr
ar s
ni
ai
nt as n
en tru …
an ct
St ce u re
St ude of
ud nt Ca
e Su …
Al nt pp
um Pr or
og
St ni E re t
ra ng ssi
te a on
Cu gy ge
rr D m
ic ev e
Te ulu el nt
ac m o pm
Key Indicators
hi En
Ev ng- ric …
al h
ua Lea m…
In tio rn
no n in
va Pr g
In tio oc …
st n e s
it E s
Fa uti cos …
cu on ys
lty al te
…
Fi E Vi
na mp sio
nc ow n …
In i
st al M erm
itu a e…
In tio nag
st n e
itu al V m
St t al …
Graphical Representation based on QnM & QlM
ud ion ue
en al s
D …
Comparison of QnM & QlM in Key Indicators based on performance(GPA)
Re t E is
se nr tin
ol c…
Fig: The comparison of Key Indicators (QnM & QlM) based on grade point average(GPA) extracted from the institution
ar lm
St c
ud h P en
e ub t
In nt lic …
te P a at
rn r io
al tici …
Q p
ua ati
l o…
Be ity
st As
Pr s…
Low Performance Key Indicators
ac
High Performance Key Indicators
tic
es
Average Performance Key Indicators
https://assessmentonline.naac.gov.in/public/index.php/hei/hei_graph_report/eyJpdiI6InZEd1lsaTBpWk5mb2JXYnBFOUUyaUE9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoibGgrUW1YdWZHeTEzUnJNeEFoNWRoQT09IiwibWFjIjoiYWIwNDM…
4/16
Comparison of LPKI and HPKI based on QnM & QlM

5
3.82 3.83 3.8 3.67
4 3.25 3.4 3.67 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
GPA
2 1.67 2 2
2
1
1
0
n…
ty
em
e…
e…
a…
i…
ti…
es
n…
rt
on
i…
e…
A…
es
tie
ur
io
op
an
za
Ca
po
ili
ct
at
iti
tic
si
llm
ud
m
m
ni
ar
a
at
st
ct
ili
ib
y
ili
fa
es
el
p
tiv
ic
ip
ac
an
ge
or
ile
lit
of
Le
Sy
u
c
St
Su
ex
ob
bl
ev
bo
ro
tis
ic
Fa
r
tr
Ac
ua
Pr
rf
of
og
Pl
ga
Pu
ce
rt
Fl
En
a
M
as
D
ck
to
Sa
lla
Pe
t
Pr
Pa
al
Q
en
st
Pr
ar
En
n
an
as
ic
fr
ce
ba
gy
Co
ch
g
ic
io
t
Be
t
al
t
ul
em
In
ud
en
rin
en
en
t
en
t
ys
ur
he
ns
te
ed
ni
ar
en
en
rn
ic
ar
ud
St
IT
ud
um
nt
so
Ph
te
ud
ra
ad
ac
te
rr
se
Fe
te
ud
ud
br
ai
Ca
Cu
St
St
Re
Ex
St
Te
St
Re
Ac
In
Al
St
Li
St
M
LPKI (0-2.0) HPKI (3.01-4.0)
Fig: Comparison of LPKI(0-2.0) and HPKI(3.01-4.0) based on QnM & QlM
Distribution of High Performance Key Indicators (3.01-4.0)
Student Progression: Academic Flexibility:

6.0% 6.0%
Student Support: Feedback System:

6.0% 6.0%
IT Infrastructure: Teacher Profile and Quality:

5.5% 5.5%
Library as a Learning Resource: Student Performance and Learning Outcomes:

5.7% 5.2%
Physical Facilities: Student Satisfaction Survey:

5.7% 5.7%
Collaboration: Resource Mobilization for Research:

6.0% 6.0%
Fig: High Performance Key Indicators(3.01-4.0) for the institution
Distribution of Average Performance Key Indicators (2.01-3.0)
Institutional Distinctiveness: Curriculum Enrichment:

11.6% 11.6%
Institutional Values and Social Responsibilities: Teaching- Learning Process:

11.5% 11.2%
Financial Management and Resource Mobilization: Evaluation Process and Reforms:

11.6% 11.6%
Innovation Ecosystem:
Faculty Empowerment Strategies: 9.7%
9.7%
Institutional Vision and Leadership:
11.6%
Fig: Average Performance Key Indicators(2.01-3.0) for the institution
Distribution of Low Performance Key Indicators (0-2.0)
Best Practices: Student Enrollment and Profile:

23.1% 23.1%
Research Publications and Awards:

11.5%
Internal Quality Assurance System:

23.1%
Student Participation and Activities:

19.3%
Fig: Low Performance Key Indicators(0-2.0) for the institution
Comparison of Criteria based on Criteria Grade Point Average

5
4 3.55 3.71
3.27 3.09 3.15
3 2.55 2.69
GPA
2
1
0
t…
d…
a…
d…
e…
ct
va
lu
pe
an
a
t
in
Le
or
Va
no
As
rn
re
pp
e,
In
a
l
tu
na
r
le
Su
nc
a
uc
g-
ul
ch
tio
na
nt
ic
tr
in
ar
itu
er
rr
as
e
ch
se
ud
Cu
ov
st
fr
a
Re
In
In
Te
St
G
Criteria GPA
Fig: Comparison of Criteria based on Criteria Grade Point Average
Performance of metrics in Curricular Aspects, Teaching-learning and Evaluation
Benchmark Value 4
0
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.4.1 1.4.2 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7.1
QLM QNM
Fig: Performance of metrics in Criteria I & II
https://assessmentonline.naac.gov.in/public/index.php/hei/hei_graph_report/eyJpdiI6InZEd1lsaTBpWk5mb2JXYnBFOUUyaUE9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoibGgrUW1YdWZHeTEzUnJNeEFoNWRoQT09IiwibWFjIjoiYWIwND… 10/16
Performance of metrics in Research, Innovations and Extension, Infrastructure and Learning Resources
Benchmark Value 4
0
3.1.1 3.1.3 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.5.1 3.5.2 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.4.1 4.4.2
QLM QNM
Fig: Performance of metrics in Criteria III & IV
Performance of metrics in Student Support and Progression, Governance, Leadership and Management, Institutional
Values and Best Practices
6
Benchmark Value
4
0
1
9
10
11
1
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
4.
4.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
5.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
QLM QNM
Fig: Performance of metrics in Criteria V, VI, VII
Graphical representation of Strengths(4) and Weakness(0) of the institution based on QnM & QlM (Criteria I,II and III)
3
Score
2
0
3
2
3.
1.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
2.
3.
4.
4.
6.
1.
1.
2.
4.
4.
5.
5.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
Metrics
Score
Fig: Graphical representation of Strengths(4) and Weakness(0) of the institution based on QnM & QlM (Criteria I,II and III)
Graphical representation of Strengths(4) and Weakness(0) of the institution based on QnM & QlM (Criteria IV,V,VI and
VII)
5
3
Score
2
0
2
10
5
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
4.
2.
1.
1.
1.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
6.
7.
7.
7.
Metrics
Score
Fig: Graphical representation of Strengths and Weakness of the institution based on QnM & QlM (Criteria IV,V,VI and VII)
Graphical representation of Strengths and Weakness of the institution based on QnM & QlM (Criteria I,II and III)
3.3.3
3.5.2 4 1.1.2
3.5.1 1.2.1 Score
3.4.3 1.2.2
3.4.2 1.2.3
3.2.2 1.3.1
0
3.1.3 1.3.3
3.1.1 1.4.1
2.6.3 1.4.2
2.4.3 2.2.2
2.4.1 2.3.3
Fig: Graphical representation of Strengths(4) and Weakness(0) of the institution based on QnM & QlM (Criteria I,II and III)
Graphical representation of Strengths and Weakness of the institution based on QnM & QlM (Criteria IV,V,VI and VII)
4.1.2
7.1.5 4 4.1.3
7.1.4 4.1.4 Score
7.1.10 4.2.2
2
6.2.3 4.2.3
5.4.2 4.2.4
0
5.2.3 4.3.2
5.2.2 4.3.3
5.2.1 4.4.1
5.1.5 5.1.1
5.1.4 5.1.2
5.1.3
Fig: Graphical representation of Strengths and Weakness of the institution based on QnM & QlM (Criteria IV,V,VI and VII)

Graphical Representation Based On QNM & QLM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Graphical Representation Based On QNM & QLM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/29/22, 10:56 AM Graphical Representation based on QnM & QlM

R. T. E SOCIETY'S RURAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE,

Graphical Representation based on Quantitative

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATION COUNCIL

Graphical Representation based on Quantitative &

Metrics(QnM & QlM) Weightage scored by the institution in percentage

Comparison of LPKI and HPKI based on QnM & QlM

Fig: Comparison of LPKI(0-2.0) and HPKI(3.01-4.0) based on QnM & QlM

Distribution of High Performance Key Indicators (3.01-4.0)

Student Progression: Academic Flexibility:

Student Support: Feedback System:

IT Infrastructure: Teacher Profile and Quality:

Library as a Learning Resource: Student Performance and Learning Outcomes:

Physical Facilities: Student Satisfaction Survey:

Collaboration: Resource Mobilization for Research:

Fig: High Performance Key Indicators(3.01-4.0) for the institution

Distribution of Average Performance Key Indicators (2.01-3.0)

Institutional Distinctiveness: Curriculum Enrichment:

Institutional Values and Social Responsibilities: Teaching- Learning Process:

Financial Management and Resource Mobilization: Evaluation Process and Reforms:

Fig: Average Performance Key Indicators(2.01-3.0) for the institution

Distribution of Low Performance Key Indicators (0-2.0)

Best Practices: Student Enrollment and Profile:

Research Publications and Awards:

Internal Quality Assurance System:

Student Participation and Activities:

Fig: Low Performance Key Indicators(0-2.0) for the institution

Comparison of Criteria based on Criteria Grade Point Average

Fig: Comparison of Criteria based on Criteria Grade Point Average

Performance of metrics in Curricular Aspects, Teaching-learning and Evaluation

Fig: Performance of metrics in Criteria I & II

Fig: Performance of metrics in Criteria III & IV

Fig: Performance of metrics in Criteria V, VI, VII

3.5.1 1.2.1 Score

You might also like