Process for defining the PSOs and PEOs
PSOs and PEOs are designed in line of Department vision and mission. The draft was framed during the interactions among Academicians, Industry professionals, Students, Employers, Management, Professional societies and Alumni at various platforms. Data required for the same is collected and compiled by Program Accreditation and Assessment Committee (PAAC). The feedback, suggestions and advices from committee members were compiled, consolidated and presented in the form of draft to QIC for review. QIC conducted survey and took advices and comments from all internal and External stakeholders and then QIC suggested some amendments based on the inputs, feedbacks, surveys and experiences of all stakeholders. After getting reviews, suggestions were incorporated in PSOs and PEOs. PSOs and PEOs were published and disseminated after approval from Governing Council.
Process to identify COs
In the process to map COs with POs and PSOs, the Course Outcomes are designed in such a way so that they can fulfill the requirements of Program Outcomes and Program Specific Outcomes. The keywords used to identify COs, bloom's taxonomy has been referred in conjunction with the course syllabus. The Course Outcomes are designed by Course Coordinators and finalized by Quality Improvement Committee (QIC) to achieve the Vision of the department with the help of its mission statements.
The following steps are used to formulate course outcome:
- Detail study of program outcomes and Program Specific Outcomes.
- Identification of keywords with the help of Bloom's Taxonomy
- Conjunction of keywords with the course curriculum.
- Develop course outcomes for each of the courses in the curriculum.
Process to map COs with POs and PSOs
The strength of mapping of COs with POs and PSOs are defined at three levels:
Level#1: Slight or Low
Level#2: Moderate or Medium
Level#3: Substantial or High
Method used to define the correlation level is based on the course hours devoted to the specific Course Outcome which address the given Program Outcome. Following formula has been used to show the connection between a single Course Outcome and Program Outcome and Program Specific Outcome. The COs-POs and COs-PSOs mapping depends on two factors: first, the learning level and second, the hours provided for that learning level. There are three learning levels are identified for this purpose.
|Learning Level||% of hours required|
|Reinforce||<40% and >=25%|
|Understanding||<=25% and >=10%|
|Introduction||Less than <10%|
Methods and tools used to measure attainment of course outcomes
|Direct Assessment methods|
|MID TERM EXAMS||Midterm and University theory exams are used to check up to which level the defined CO's are|
|LAB EVALUATION||This is a continuous assessment to analyze student's practical knowledge.|
|ASSESSMENT||Midterm and University practical exams are used to check up to which level the defined LO's attained.|
|LAB EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT|
|TUTORIAL/ASSIGNMENT||These are methods used to test the analytical skills of the students by making them to find solutions of difficult problems.|
|OUTCOME BASED APPROACH||It is a tool used to evaluate the real time problem solving skills using techniques like case study, application based questions and mini projects.|
|Indirect Assessment methods|
|SURVEY||It includes students' feedback and semester end survey. It is used to identify the gaps in the curriculum with reference to POs, PSOs and industry perspectives. Based on the|
|FEEDBACK||feedback short term courses, workshops, seminars etc required to bridge the gap can be organized.|
Table: 2.6.13 CO Assessment Methodology and Tools
|CO Assessment Tool||Weightage||Assessment Frequency||Facilitator||Reviewer|
|MID TERM EXAMS||40%||Twice: Mid Term-I: In the middle of the semester (60% course coverage) Mid Term-II: At||Course Coordinator||Quality Improvement Committee|
|the end of semester (40% course coverage)|
|UNIVERSITY EXAMS||25%||Once: End of semester||Rajasthan Technical University|
|TUTORIAL/ASSIGNMENT||15%||Two per approximately ten in semester||unit, a||Course Coordinator||Quality Improvement Committee|
|APPROACH (CASE STUDY/ APPLICATION BASED APPROACH/MINI PROJECTS)||10%||Once in semester||a||Course Coordinator||Quality Improvement Committee|
|SURVEY AND FEEDBACK||10%||Students' feedback conducted twice in semester semester survey conducted the end semester.||a and end is at of||Quality Improvement Committee||Quality Improvement Committee|
Attainment of course outcomes with respect to set attainment levels
|1||Mid Term Examinations||Attainment Level 1: 50% than target% of marks||students||scoring||more|
|Attainment Level 2: 60% than target% of marks||students||scoring||more|
|2||RTU Examinations||Attainment Level 3: 70% than target% of marks||students||scoring||more|
|3||Tutorial / Assignment||Attainment Level 1: 60% than target% of marks||students||scoring||more|
|Attainment Level 2: 70% than target% of marks||students||scoring||more|
|4||Outcome based approach||Attainment Level 3: 80% than target% of marks||students||scoring||more|
|5||Survey and Feedback||Attainment Level 1: 60% stakeholders are agreed with the attainment of COs. Attainment Level 2: 70% stakeholders are agreed|
|with the attainment of COs. Attainment Level 3: 80% stakeholders are agreed with the attainment of COs.|