iqac presentations

BMS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

BENGALURU-560019

Autonomous Institution affiliated to VTU

Accredited by NAAC with ‘A’

Two day State Level Workshop on

OUTCOMES BASED EDUACATION:

TEACHING, LEARNING & EVALUATION

Date(s)

15th – 16th FEBRUARY 2016

Organised by

Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC), BMSCE

Sponsored by NAAC, Bengaluru

www.bmsce.ac.in

BMS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, BENGALURU

BMS College of Engineering (BMSCE) was founded in the

year 1946 by Late Sri. B. M. Sreenivasaiah a great visionary

and philanthropist and nurtured by his illustrious son Late

Sri. B. S. Narayan. BMSCE is the first private sector initiative

in engineering education in India. BMSCE has completed 69

years of dedicated service in the field of Engineering

Education. Started with only 03 undergraduate courses,

BMSCE today offers 13 Undergraduate & 16 Postgraduate

courses both in conventional and emerging areas. 15 of its

Departments are recognized as Research Centres offering

PhD/M.Sc (Engineering by Research) degrees in Science,

Engineering, Architecture and Management attracting

students from all over the country.

The Institution is approved by AICTE, New Delhi, and

affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU),

Belgaum, Karnataka. BMSCE is an AICTE recognized QIP

Centre in Engineering & Technology. It is the only

institution from India adopted by the Melton Foundation,

USA. BMSCE is in TEQIP Phase I and Phase II (a World Bank

project). BMSCE is accredited with A Grade by NAAC

(2013-2018) and 11 programmes have been accredited by

National Board of Accreditation (NBA), New Delhi under

Tier-I as per Washington accord. The College has one of the

largest student populations amongst engineering colleges

in Karnataka. Currently about 5000 students are pursuing

their higher education.

A strong alumni base of over 35,000 most of them occupying

coveted positions in various Educational, Industrial and

Research organizations. The college is being ranked

consistently among the top 20 engineering colleges in the

country by surveys conducted by various media sources.

PATRONS:

Justice S.R.Bannurmath, Hon. Chairman, BMSET

Dr. B.S. Ragini Narayan, Donor Trustee, BMSET

Dr. P. Dayanand Pai, Chairman, BMSCE

Mr. K. Jairaj, IAS (Retd), Trustee, BMSET

Mr. H.U. Talawar, DTE, GOK & Trustee, BMSET

ADVISORS:

Dr. K. Mallikharjuna Babu, Principal, BMSCE

Dr. G.N. Sekhar, Vice- Principal, BMSCE

INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE CELL (IQAC)

The aim of IQAC at BMSCE is to

Develop a system for conscious, consistent and catalytic

action to improve the academic performance of the

institution.

Promote measures for institutional functioning towards

quality enhancement through internalization of quality

culture and institutionalization of best practices.

IMPORTANCE OF THE WORKSHOP

Engineering plays a pivotal role in the improvement of

quality of life. Engineering Education has to be relevant and

effective to responsibly cater to this mandate. The pace of

technological changes is posing challenges for the

academia in terms of making the curriculum relevant to the

needs of the profession and effective in deployment. The

conventional content based teaching – learning followed in

the academic systems have proved to be less effective in

terms of effective design and delivery. Outcome based

education (OBE) has emerged as the way forward for the

academic community in addressing the challenges.

Outcomes based education is a process of curriculum

design, teaching, learning and assessment that focusses on

what the students can actually do after they are taught. It

attempts to embrace course outcomes with the knowledge,

skills attitudes and values that match the immediate social,

economic and cultural environment of society.

The change agents in the academic system are the faculty

members and they are expected to have the clear

understanding of mapping the existing curriculum to the

expected graduate programme outcomes through the

courses they teach adopting outcomes based approach. In

addition, an exposure to pedagogical practices, best

practices in academics will further empower the faculty

member to be able to effectively discharge their duty.

Engineering Education in India is changing from traditional

teaching, learning method to OBE. Accreditation agencies

like NAAC and NBA are facilitating this shift in engineering

education to enhance the quality and make the students

globally competitive.

EXPECTED OUTCOMES:

At the end of two day workshop, the participants will be

able to:

Write course outcomes that are required to meet the

Programme Outcomes (POs).

Map COs with appropriate Programme Outcomes

(POs).

Choose appropriate assessments for evaluation of

Course Outcomes (COs).

Introduce active learning techniques.

RESOURCE PERSONS:

1. Dr.K.Rajanikanth, Educational Expert

2. Dr.N.J.Rao, Educational Expert

3. Dr.K.Mallikharjuna Babu, BMSCE

4. Dr.R.V.Ranganath, BMSCE

5. Dr.B.Kanmani, BMSCE

6. Dr.H.S.Guruprasad, BMSCE

7. Dr.P.Meena, BMSCE

8. Dr.Suresh Ramaswwamyreddy, BMSCE

WHO CAN ATTEND?

Principals/Directors/Deans

Heads of the Departments

Faculty Members

IQAC Coordinators

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS

Limited to 45 - Selection criteria - first come first serve

basis.

REGISTRATION FEE

Rs. 500/- per participant

Participants will not be given TA/DA. They have to make

their own arrangements for accommodation.

HOW TO REACH?

BMSCE is located in the heart of Bengaluru city. It is about

5 kms from the Central Railway Station/ Bus Terminus.

IMPORTANT DATES:

Last date for submission of registration form: 10th Feb

2015.

Intimation to selected candidates through email: 12th Feb

2015.

Please mail scanned registration form to

[email protected].

Registration form can be submitted at the time of

registration. The payment is to be made in cash at the time

of registration.

For Further details contact:

Prof. Suresh Ramaswwamyreddy

Director, IQAC, BMSCE.

Mobile: 09483512589

email: [email protected]

[email protected]

TOPICS

Overview of OBE Dr. K. M. Babu

PEO, PO & PSO-

Expectations

Dr. R.V. Ranganath

Bloom’s Taxonomy Dr. K. Rajanikanth

Achieving Good Outcomes

through Good Assessment

Dr. N. J. Rao

Course outcomes-

Expectations

Dr. B.Kanmani

Assessment - Rubrics Dr .H.S. Guru Prasad

Active learning

techniques- case study

Dr. P. Meena

Continuous Improvement-

Essence of OBE

Dr.Suresh

REGISTRATION FORM

Name

Designation

Educational

Qualification

Institution

Experience

Address for correspondence:

e-mail

Mobile no.

Signature of the Candidate

Seal & signature of the Principal

mailto:[email protected]



BMS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING BENGALURU-560019

Two day State Level Workshop on OUTCOMES BASED EDUACATION: TEACHING, LEARNING & EVALUATION

Sponsored by NAAC, Bengaluru PROGRAM SCHEDULE

Venue: BSN Hall, PG Block Day I: 15th February 2016

Session Time Speaker Topic(s) 08.45 - 09.30 Registration

09.30- 10.00 Inauguration 10.00- 10.15 Coffee Break 1 10.15 - 11.15 K. Mallikharjuna Babu Overview of OBE 2 11.15 - 12.45 R V Ranganath PEO, PO & PSO- Expectations 12.45 - 01.45 Lunch Break 3 01.45 - 03.15 K.Rajanikanth Bloom’s Taxonomy 03.15 - 03.30 Tea Break 4 03.30 - 05.00 N.J. Rao Achieving Good Outcomes through Good Assessment

Day II: 16th February 2016

Session Time Speaker Topic(s) 5 09.30 -11.00 B.Kanmani Course outcomes- Expectations 11.00 -11.15 Coffee Break 6 11.15 - 12.00 R V Ranganath Faculty Contribution in OBE 7 12.00 - 01.00 H.S. Guru Prasad Assessment - Rubrics 01.00 - 02.00 Lunch Break 8 02.00 - 02.45 P. Meena Active learning techniques- case study 9 02.45 - 03.30 Suresh Continuous Improvement- Essence of OBE 03.30 -03.45 Tea Break 03.45- 04.15 Wrap up

1

Workshop on

Outcome Based Education

Centre of Excellence in Engineering Education (CEEE)

BMS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING(Autonomous College under VTU)

BANGALORE-560 019 22-02-2016 Dr. Suresh BMSCE

2

Continuous Improvement- Essence

of OBE

22-02-2016 Dr. Suresh BMSCE

5

1. Pedagogical Improvements2. Human Infrastructure –Faculty Qualification EnhancementTechnical Staff Quality Improvement3. Physical Infrastructure – Enhancement of Lab facilities Improvement of labsCreation of new labs

Continuous Improvement


6

Continuous Improvement- contd.4. Interaction with outside systems IndustriesPeer Group InstitutionsMentor Institutes Job Providers5. Systemic Improvements Policies of the InstitutionAligning the entire system to Vision and

Mission of the InstituteCurriculum Design6. Student Activities – Formal & Informal7. Facilities for Extra Curricular Growth 22-02-2016 Dr. Suresh BMSCE

7


Course level - Teaching Learning Process

Programme Level Institute Level


11

Course Content Delivery Methods

M1: Lectures

M2: Lecture with quiz

M3: Tutorials

M4: Laboratory sessions

M5: Field work/visits

M6: Presentations

M7: Learning resources (NPTEL and VTU e-learning)

M8: Guest lectures/Extension lectures/Interaction with

field experts


12

Delivery Methods and Linkages to POs

POMethods

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

M1: Lectures √ √ √ √M2: Lectures with Quiz √ √M3: Tutorials √ √M4: Laboratory sessions

√ √ √ √

M5: Field works/visits √ √ √M6: Presentations (PPTs)

√

M7: Learning Resources

√ √ √

M8: Guest lectures / Extension lectures / Interaction with field experts

√ √ √


13

CURRICULAM COMPONENTS

COURSE COs PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12

Discipline coreGeotechnical Engineering-II10CV5DCGTE

CO1 3 3 - - - - - - - - - -

CO2 3 3 - - - - - - - - - -CO3 3 3 - - - - - - - - - -CO4 3 3 2 - - 3 - - - - - -

Discipline coreDesign of RCC Structures10CV5DCRCC

CO1 3 3 - - - - - 1 - - - -CO2 3 3 3 - - - - 2 - - - -CO3 3 3 3 - - - - 3 - - - -

Discipline coreEnvironmental Engineering - I10CV5DCENV

CO1 3 2 1 3 - 3 3 3 - 2 - -CO2 3 3 1 3 - 3 3 2 - 3 - -CO3 3 3 3 - - - 3 3 - 3 - -

Discipline coreHighway Engineering10CV5DCHEN

CO1 3 3 2 - - - - - - - - -CO2 3 3 3 3 - 3 - 2 - 3 - -CO3 3 3 2 - - 3 - 2 - - - -CO4 3 3 - - - - - - - - - -

Projects/Industrial visits/training

Industrial Visit/Minor Project10CV5DCMIP

CO1 - - - - - - - - - - - 3CO2 - - - - - - - - - - - 3

CO3 - - - - - - - - - 3 - -

Discipline coreDesign of Steel Structures10CV6DCDSS

CO1 3 - - - - - - - - - - -CO2 3 3 - - - - - - - - - -CO3 3 3 3 - - - - 3 - - - -CO4 3 3 3 - - - - 3 - - - -

Discipline coreEnvironmental Engineering - II10CV6DCENV

CO1 3 3 2 - - 3 2 - - - - -CO2 3 3 3 - - 3 1 - - - - -CO3 3 3 3 - - 3 2 - - - - -22-02-2016 Dr. Suresh BMSCE

14

Tools for Assessment & Evaluation to POs

AssessmentTypes

Assessment Tools

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

Direct Tools

Tests √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Quiz √ √ √ √ √

Lab/Seminars/Industrial Training/Projects (Rubrics)

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Indirect Tools

Semester End Exams

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Course End Survey

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Exit Survey √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Faculty Survey √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Alumni Survey √ √ √

Programme Statistics √ √ √ √ √ √


15

Performance Criteria for Direct Assessment

Performance Criteria

CIE (Test, Quiz & AAT)

Extensive Survey Project

Industrial visits

Industrial Training

Major Project

Mapping of COs to POs with Weightage to Correlation

Strongly Related, giving a weightage of 3,

Moderately Related, giving a weightage of 2 and

Related, being giving a weightage of 1.22-02-2016 Dr. Suresh BMSCE

Assessment of PO attainment throughDirect and Indirect methods

16

>Target value<Target value


Attainment of POs through CIE

17

student


18

Assessment of PO attainment through Indirect methods


19

PO attainment is less than the target value - ?

Course Name : HYDROLOGY & WATER RESOUCES ENGINEERINGCourse Code : 10CV5DCHWRSession of Course Sep. 2010 to Dec. 2010L : T : P - 4 : 0 : 0Semester : VCredits :4Batch : 2008


22-02-2016 Dr. Suresh BMSCE 20

21

Reasons ?

1. Students found it difficult to find the area of a regular/irregular area.

2. Topic is analytical and needs to remember number of formulae.

3. Require more clarification between Hyetograph and mass curve.


Reflections ?Think – Pair - Share

What can we do ?

How to improve the situation?

Any suggestions ?


23

Possible Delivery Methods for enhancing Learning:1.Project mode learning.2.NPTEL Videos/ lectures http://freevideolectures.com/Course/3100/Advanced-Hydrology#http://nptel.ac.in/courses/105101002/3. Include visuals to enhance the understanding of the few topics of the course. 4. More analytical rehearsals through active learning methods.


24

What is the effect ?



25





PO Attainmentof2009‐10Batch(Graduatedduring2013)

POs PO Description PO Attainment, %

PO1An ability to apply the knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering fundamentals tothe solution of Civil Engineering problems.

76%

PO2An ability to identify and analyse Civil Engineering problems for meaningful solutions toform the basis for design of Civil Engineering system components.

75%

PO3An ability to design solutions for Civil Engineering problems and design systemcomponents.

68%

PO4 An ability to conduct experiments, analyse and interpret data to provide valid conclusions. 77%

PO5An ability to apply appropriate techniques and use modern engineering tools to CivilEngineering systems.

76%

PO6An ability to assess safety and legal issues and the consequent responsibilities relevant to the

professional Civil Engineering practice.71%

PO7An ability to understand the impact of the professional Civil Engineering solutions inrelations to societal needs, environmental concerns and sustainable development.

72%

PO8An ability to understand the importance of professional ethics and norms of the CivilEngineering practice.

71%

PO9 An ability to function effectively as a member and/or leader in diverse teams. 88%

PO10 An ability to comprehend, write reports and present it effectively. 79%

PO11An ability to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the management principles toapply to Civil Engineering projects.

74%

PO12 An ability to engage in life-long learning in the context of technological change. 81%

Dr. Suresh BMSCE 2822-02-2016

How to improve PO3, PO6 & PO8?

29

POS – NOT ATTAINED/ NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

DAC ADVISORY BOARD

OPTIONS

CHANGE THE CURRICULUM

CHANGE TLP


Feed Back System on Teaching Learning Process


32

10CV5DCHWR- HYDROLOGY & WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING

COS:

1. CO1: An ability to understand the components of hydrologiccycle.

2. CO2: An ability to understand the occurrence of rainfall andthus estimating the average rainfall over a watershed.

3. CO3: An ability to estimate the runoff from a watershedaccounting for the losses like evaporation, evapotranspiration, infiltration.

.

Precipitation: Weather systems, Forms and types of precipitation,Measurement of rain fall using Symon’s and Siphon type of raingauges, Optimum number of rain gauge stations, Consistency of rainfall data (double mass curve method),Computation of meanrainfall arithmetic average, Thiessen polygon and Isohyetalmethods, Estimation of missing rainfall data (Arithmeticaverage, normal ratio and regression methods).Presentation ofprecipitation data -moving average, mass curve, rainfall hyetographs, intensity – duration - frequency curves.

Losses from precipitation: Evaporation: process, factors affecting Evaporation, measurement using IS Class A Pan, Estimation using empirical formulae. Infiltration: factors affecting infiltrationcapacity, measurement (double ring infiltrometer). Horton’sinfiltration equation, infiltration indices.

Runoff: Concept of catchment/ watershed, Water budget equation,components, Factors affecting runoff. Rainfall - runoff relationship using simple regression analysis, SCS Curve Number Method,Unit Hydrograph method.

Assignment:

It is proposed to construct an obstruction across riverKumaradhara near Kukke subramanya. The dam site is marked on the toposheet. Estimate the runoff at the dam site. Also develop aphysical model of the catchment.

Following are the tasks:

Identify the toposheets numbers required for the project Delineate the catchment boundary on the toposheets with

respect to the dam site and transfer the same on to a tracingsheet

Trace the drainage network on to a tracing sheet & rank thestream orders.

Trace all the contours in the catchment from the deepest pointto the ridge of the catchment.

Visit the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) or Disaster Management cell website & find the rainguage stations in and around the study area.

Collect the rainfall records for these stations. Mark the rainguage stations on the toposheet and transfer the

same on to a tracing sheet. Identify the best method among the three methods to find the

mean precipitation over the area. Thiessen polygon is the best method in this case. Develop a physical model depicting the actual terrain of the

catchment. Choose the best method of estimating the Runoff: SCS Curve number method id the best one. From National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning,

collect the land use land cover and the type of soil in the studyarea.

Identify the curve numbers for the HSG & the type of land cover.

Find the runoff based on the mean precipitation. Best correlated: CO2, CO3 – PO2. 22-02-2016 Dr. Suresh BMSCE

36

Thiessen Polygon Method


TLP in BMSCE: 3 Type of Courses Regular Course – No Lab Component Integrated Course – Theory+ Lab Comprehensive Course- Theory + lab+

self learning component


42

EEE- Students demonstrating the Self – Learning Component

Based on the principle of Pascal’s law develop a working model


43

Best Practices to Enhance the PO Attainment

Earlier : QUIZ MARKS – 10 2 QUIZZES ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT TOOLS (AAT)

Best Practices: INTRODUCTION OF INDEX CARDS THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) THINK ALOUD PAIR PROBLEM SOLVING (TAPPS) –

Explainer & questioner


44

Index cards


Think – Pair- Share What is the use of Horton’s Infiltration curve?

What is infiltration capacity?

When will runoff occurs?

Suppose if the terrain is flat with depressions, then the initial storage will be …..

When will AET becomes PET?

Is it possible to keep the Evapotranspiration at PET all the time.

What is the name of the instrument used for measurement Evapotranspiration?

What is the relation between Evapotranspiration & Irrigation Scheduling?


RECIPROCAL PEER QUESTIONING- Ask each group to prepare about 5 tough questions on each topic.

1 MINUTE QUESTION FLIPPED CLASS ROOM

TENT SCHOOL – Social Engineering Built Use Shift (BUS) Project


48





Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)Annual Quality Audit / Academic Audit.Pedagogy.Research and Development Cell.Non Teaching staff Training.Feed back.Departmental Interactions with IQAC and its

impact.Training and Research – Entrepreneurship. ICT as Teaching Learning Process.Tapping Innovative Ideas of Faculty-

Researchers’ Forum News Letter of IQAC: Quality Initiatives and

Endeavors22-02-2016 Dr. Suresh BMSCE 49

Feedback System

Link Between Student Engagement and Teacher Excellence

• Educator as Facilitator• Educator as Motivator• Educator as Designer

Excellent Teacher

Establishing Rapport (Facilitator). Stimulating Student Interest (Motivator). Structuring Classroom Experiences

(Designer).

Assessment Review There will be 3 feed back sessions in a semester.

Immediately after the feed back, the concerned faculty willget a report of the Feed back.

In addition, the Dean (Academic) and the concerned Hodwill get the feed back of all the faculty.

The Institute fixed a feedback of 60%. If the feed back of anyteacher in any subject is less than 60%, he /she is called fora counselling.

A team of experts (most of the professors are from IISc) willcounsel the teacher.

If the feed back of any teacher is less than 60%consecutively for 12 times, he/she will be asked to quit theinstitution.

For those teachers whose feed back is less, IQAC willorganize Pedagogy or subject wise training.

Assessing the Teaching Capabilities of new faculty

There are 341 teaching faculty in BMSCE.

Out of this 165 are newly recruited faculty. Minimum qualification : M. Tech/ME These newly recruited faculty are grouped as

FG1, FG2.. Each FG consists of about 30-35 faculty.

Pedagogy Training: QEEE – Quality Enhancement in Engineering

Education, An Initiative by IIT- Chennai. International Engineering Educators

certification program.

Other Topics

Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy- Prof. Rajanikanth.

Curriculum Design & Development workshops.

CIE- Assessment workshops22-02-2016 Dr. Suresh BMSCE 56


IUCEE- IGIP International Educators’ Training Programme

To augment the CIE, a centralized system at the department level is in place.

HOD’s to identify 2/3 coordinators for each test/ semester.

All the teachers will hand over the question papers to the HOD, 2 days prior to the test date.

The HOD will in turn hand over the test papers to the coordinators. The test papers are in safe custody in the HOD’s room.

On the test day, the concerned teacher along with other teacher will collect the question papers and answer scripts from the HOD’s office and conduct the test.

Once the test is over, they will hand over the books to the coordinators along with the attendance sheet and the unanswered books.

The concerned teacher will evaluate the books in the seminar hall with in 48 hours and enter the marks in the register kept in the department and the same is displayed on the notice board.

Augment the existing CIE:

Department Colloquiums:

Every Department is conducting a Colloquium once in a month.

The speakers are the faculty from the same department. Sharing their research experience. Session will be of 45mins. Followed by 15 mins question hour.


Communication Skills – Spoken EnglishComputer TrainingSubject Training

Non Teaching Staff Training:

Inter disciplinary ResearchPropel Labs – 3D Printing, Aero Lab, Robotics lab…..


AWARENESS PROGRAM TO OFFICE ASSISTANTS

Organized by

IQAC of BMSCE

Academic support to AUTONOMOUS PROGRAMS

Role of Office Assistant

To assist the student regarding various processes involved.

To appraise the HoD about compliances to be submitted to Deans/COE from time to time.

To systematically file the academic documents& records.

To support faculty/staff and appraise them about various time lines for compliances.

66

Inter Disciplinary Research



WORKSHOP ON QUALITY OF ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING LEARNING PROCESS

DATE: 29-7-2015

Venue: BSN Hall

Teaching Involves

Admitting: Fair, open & Inclusive

Inducting: Initiating/Orienting Fresher

Pre-assessing: Checking entry Position of Learner

Helping Learning: Participatory Approaches

Remediating: Helping the ‘Turtles’ in the Group

Enriching: Accelerating the advanced Learners

Mentoring: Tutorials, personal solutions & Life guidance etc.,

72

Cynical questions from a ‘teacher’ or questions from a ‘cynical teacher’:1. Why OBE? Haven’t there been successful engineers/professionals/graduates who become successful due to the earlier/conventional system of education?2. What is wrong with the prevailing system of education?3. Isn’t OBE system simply a waste of energy and efforts? Instead of ‘teaching’, we are doing so many unwanted things! OBE system is inflexible! We ‘teachers’ are becoming bound by so-called TLP blah, blah, blah, instead of ‘teaching’!4. All these activities of OBE is a waste of time! Nothing worthwhile will come out of it? What is the guarantee that it is working?5. It is taking/ it will take too much time to prepare, again waste of time! I think we will end up not ‘covering’ the syllabus!6. Well, I know that my students are being taught well, they have said so! Why should I change my method of ‘teaching’?7. I have so many years of ‘teaching’ experience, I know that I am doing well, ask my students and my colleagues. All this talk of OBE is nonsense.8. OBE is becoming a fashionable word! It is for ‘teachers’ who want to waste their time in the class, instead of ‘teaching’!9. When students are so heterogeneous, how can you expect that OBE will work?10. I am a product of the nice ‘time-tested’ education system, I know that it is the best. Why all these jargons of OBE and TLP??11. Look all this OBE will work if all ‘teachers’ follow that, otherwise it will become a BIG failure! On the other hand the conventional system accommodates all types of ‘teachers’.12. I believe that ‘teachers’ will lose respect if we start doing all this so called OBE/TLP. Once ‘teachers’ lose respect, the system of education collapses!!13. Well, OBE is for incompetent ‘teachers’ who do not know how to ‘teach’ the way we experienced ‘teachers’ are doing!14. What is all this nonsense of outcomes, objectives?? Instead of imparting knowledge we will end up doing crazy unnecessary things!15. Why should we be bound by the crazy suggestions/opinions of people who are trying to sell OBE? It is simply a business! 22-02-2016 Dr. Suresh BMSCE

73

16. OBE does not work for/in Indian conditions! It is for Americans who want us to provide them with what they want!!17. Look, I studied in IIT/IISc/NIT…. and they weren’t practicing all this OBE blah, blah… Does that mean the premier institutes are useless?18. This OBE based accreditation is becoming a big business, it is sheer nonsense!19. Look, now you are telling OBE, later somebody sitting in USA tells something else and we all forget OBE and start another rubbish thing! Why should some ‘accord’ somewhere dictate the way I am ‘teaching’???20. All our research credential will become redundant if we start doing these crazy things as per OBE! Mark my words!21. Well, let us assume for the time being that what you are telling is OK, but have you asked the student if this OBE system is OK for them? They are so innocent; they will simply nod their head! So, don’t take them for granted, we should ‘teach’ them properly.22. Class room discipline will go for a toss! Already the present students have no respect for ‘teachers’ and if we start implementing all this, then we will become a laughing stock!23. And by the way, did you ask the parents of the students about their opinion on OBE? I’m sure they will not like this one bit! They will say ‘all the fee we paid will go as a waste’! I don’t want my child to be put in such a college!24. And also, did you ask the employers? They will stop coming to the campus recruitment! 25. OBE will bring down the marks scored by the students and they will lose opportunity in the job market!26. And, again, does our university want this? No. All this OBE is a business by people who are into all this accreditation! When they themselves are not following OBE, why should they come and give sermons on OBE to us!27. My dear Sir, OBE is not for engineering colleges, they may be OK for vocational training courses where they are doing business!28. Try OBE for polytechnic colleges and if it works come back! It will be a big failure. Don’t waste the resources of engineering colleges!


THE SIGNIFICANCE AND RELEVANCE OF OBE

Prof R NatarajanFormer Chairman, AICTE

Former Director, IIT [email protected]

Presentation by : Prof. R. Natarajan, IIT-Madras 2 of 9

THE ANATOMY OF A RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

HUMAN RESOURCES• Faculty• Staff• Students

TANGIBLE OUTPUTS• Manpower• Research Papers• Products and Processes• Patents• Books• Short-term Courses• International / National

Conferences• QIP• MoUs• Participation in National

decision-making• Professional Society

activities• Editorial Boards

LEARNING-TEACHING-ASSESSMENTPROCESSES

R & D

IC & SR

CONTINUING EDUCATION

PHYSICALRESOURCES• Labs• Library• Infrastructure

INPUTSOUTPUTS ANDOUTCOMES

INTANGIBLE OUTCOMES• Brand Equity• Scholarship• Reputation• Credibility• National Image, Pride• Excellence, Quality• Role Model

FINANACIAL RESOURCES

OUTCOMES-BASEDTEACHING AND LEARNING

OUTCOMES-BASED TEACHING & LEARNING (OBTL)

According to Prof. Tony T.N. Hung of HKBU, the‘Essence’ of OBTL is captured by three statements:

1. “In education, what matters ultimately is not what is taught, but what is learned;

2. Therefore, teachers would do well to set their course/program objectives (as far as possible) in terms of learning outcomes.

3. What we teach and how we teach, and how we assessour students, ought to be properly aligned with our intended learning outcomes”.

THE WASHINGTON ACCORD

R. Unnikrishnan

Goal: Working Together to Advance Benchmarking and Mobility in the Engineering Profession

BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THE WASHINGTON ACCORD

ØOriginally signed in 1989 by 6 engineering education accrediting bodies from:

• Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom & United States – All English-speaking Countries.

ØNon-governmental agreement

Ø Emphasizes peer-review

BRIEF BACKGROUND (Cont’d)

q Monitoring & verification of signatories’ accreditation system every 6 years

q Developmental pathways for provisional admission

q Business Meeting of Signatories - every 2 years

q Full signatory status requires unanimous agreement

WASHINGTON ACCORD

… recognizes the “substantial equivalency” of accreditation systems to assess that the graduates of accredited programs are prepared to practice engineering at the entry level to the profession.

Ø Therefore, the focus is on 4-year (minimum)Undergraduate programs in engineering.

WASHINGTON ACCORDLATEST POSITION – POST JUNE 13 2014

New Permanent Signatories:1. The Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka2. National Board of Accreditation, India

In the case of the National Board of Accreditation (NBA), recognition of programmes by other signatories applies only to programmes accredited by NBA that are offered by education providers accepted by NBA as Tier 1 institutions

WASHINGTON ACCORDCURRENT SIGNATORIES

1. Australia - Represented by Engineers Australia (1989)2. Canada - Represented by Engineers Canada (1989)3. Chinese Taipei - Represented by Institute of Engineering

Education Taiwan (2007)4. Hong Kong China - Represented by The Hong Kong

Institution of Engineers (1995)5. India - Represented by National Board of Accreditation

(2014)(Applies only to programmes accredited by NBA offered by education providers accepted by NBA as Tier 1 institutions.)

6. Ireland - Represented by Engineers Ireland (1989)7. Japan - Represented by Japan Accreditation Board for

Engineering Education (2005)8. Korea - Represented by Accreditation Board for

Engineering Education of Korea (2007)

9. Malaysia - Represented by Board of Engineers Malaysia (2009)

10. New Zealand - Represented by Institution of Professional Engineers NZ (1989)

11. Russia - Represented by Association for Engineering Education of Russia (2012)

12. Singapore - Represented by Institution of Engineers Singapore (2006)

13. South Africa - Represented by Engineering Council of South Africa (1999)

14. Sri Lanka - Represented by Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka (2014)

15. Turkey - Represented by MUDEK (2011)16. United Kingdom - Represented by Engineering Council

UK (1989)17. United States - Represented by Accreditation Board for

Engineering and Technology (1989)

ORGANIZATIONS HOLDING PROVISIONAL STATUS

1. Bangladesh - Represented by Board of Accreditation for Engineering and Technical Education

2. China - Represented by China Association for Science and Technology

3. Pakistan - Represented by Pakistan Engineering Council

4. Peru - Represented by ICACIT5. Philippines - Represented by Philippine Technological

Council

TIER I AND TIER II INSTITUTIONS

ØApplies only in the context of NBA membership in Washington Accord

ØTier I institutions are Universities (of all types ) and Autonomous Colleges; Tier II institutions are the Affiliated Colleges.

Ø Rationale: Tier I institutions have the freedom to make and sustain changes in their Academic systems and processes.

14 16 February 2016

ABET 2000 a-k competencies

a. ability to apply knowledge of math, science & engineeringb. ability to design & conduct experiments, analyze datac. ability to design a system component or processd. ability to function on multi-disciplinary teamse. ability to identify, solve & formulate engineering problemsf. understanding of professional & ethical responsibilitiesg. ability to communicate effectivelyh. understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global & societal

contexti. life-long learningj. knowledge of contemporary issuesk. ability to use techniques, skills & engineering tools necessary for

engineering practiceKey Words : Competencies, Abilities

Source: www.abet.org

Ø Outcome assessment is a method for determining Øwhether students have learned, Øhave retained, and Øcan apply what they have been taught.

ØAssessment plans have three components: Øa statement of educational goals, Ømultiple measures of achievement of the goals,Ø and use of the resulting information to improve the educational process.

ØThe results of outcomes assessment are part of a feedback loop in which faculty members are provided information that they can use to improve their teaching and student learning

Part - B - I. Vision, Mission and Programme Educational Objectives

16-Feb-16

1.2.4. State the process for establishing the PEOs:

Information:

Vision, Mission & Objectives

Programme Educational Objectives(PEOs)

Programme Outcomes(POs)

Course Outcome

1

Course Outcome

2

Course Outcome

n

REVIEW OF BASIC DEFINITIONS – Oct 15 2015

Program Educational Objectives – Program educational objectives are broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few years of graduation. Program educational objectives are based on the needs of the program’s constituencies.

Student Outcomes – Student outcomes describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire as they progress through the program.

Assessment – Assessment is one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the attainment of student outcomes. Effective assessment uses relevant direct, indirect, quantitative and qualitative measures as appropriate to the outcome being measured. Appropriate sampling methods may be used as part of an assessment process.

Evaluation – Evaluation is one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment processes. Evaluation determines the extent to which student outcomes are being attained. Evaluation results in decisions and actions regarding program improvement.

SAMPLE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES FORB. TECH MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Courtesy : Ashok Saxena

PEO 1. Educate students with an in-depth understanding ofmathematics, science and engineering and to build a strongfoundation of theory and practice in the areas of MechanicalEngineering.

PEO 2. To prepare students for successful careers inMechanical Engineering in small, medium and largeindustrial and government enterprises and to succeed in postgraduate studies in engineering, management or otherrelated fields.

PEO 3. To make students aware of (a) the societal context ofengineering profession (b) ethical professional practices, and(c) the need to function effectively in multi-disciplinaryteams to solve technical and societal problems

PROGRAM OUTCOMES

1. Apply the knowledge of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering……2. Identify, formulate, research literature, and analyze complex engineering

problems……..3. Design of solutions for complex engineering problems and design of systems……4. Use research based methods…..5. Create, select, and apply appropriate techniques, resources, and modern

engineering and IT tools……6. Apply reasoning within the contextual knowledge to access societal, health,

safety…….7. Understand the impact of the professional engineering solutions….8. Apply ethical principles and commit to professional ethics….9. Function effectively as an individual independently and as a member or leader in

diverse teams10. Effective Communication11. Knowledge of effective management principles12. Life-long learning

SOME (PROVOCATIVE) QUESTIONS

Ø Is it necessary to seek WA membership? What are the benefits? Are we enjoying these benefits without WA membership – overseas employment and higher education opportunities (through GRE, GMAT..) ?

Ø Same questions for ABET?

ØSince ABET is one of the signatories of WA , if India gets WA membership, is ABET still relevant for us?

ØWhat is the relevance of NAAC accreditation for engineering institutions? cf NBA accreditation has recently been made mandatory for receiving grants.

RATIONALE

Ø International Collaborations – Due Diligence:ØNational AccreditationØ International AccreditationØ RankingsØ Reputation

Specific and clearly defined outcomes must be described to the students so that the students will be able to set their own expectations and means to achieve the desired outcomes.

As such, the role of the lecturers is to guide and provide directions for the students to navigate their own learning.

The defined outcomes must be specific, measureable, achievable, realistic and time-based.

RELEVANCE OF OBE TO WASHINGTON ACCORD

In engineering education, the outcome based approach has been mandated as compulsory for accreditation of an engineering program for signatories of the Washington Accord.

The main problem with implementation of outcome based education is the broad definition of outcome based education itself. While it emphasizes the achievement of outcomes, this also refers to the achievement of learning outcomes (LO) for a particular course

The concept of OBE also does not provide for any specific procedure or follow a single idea in achieving the outcomes which led to confusion as to how best to implement OBE curricula

The original concept of OBE includes the cyclic continual improvement with meaningful revision of teaching and learning pedagogies, delivery and assessment methods.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRADITIONAL LEARNING AND OBE

In traditional learning, the outcomes are mostly labelled as learning objectives which encourages the construction of LO being direct translation of course contents objectives .

In OBE, the outcomes should be significant achievements which stretches beyond the achievement of particular course contents and contributes to the behaviouralattributes of the students.

The ultimate aims of outcome based education in engineering education is to equip the undergraduates of an engineering program with the attributes necessary for them to transition themselves into professional career as a global engineer

The utilization of Bloom’s Taxonomy Cognitive Domain, Psychomotor Domain and Affective Domain is implemented across all courses in each assessment inclusive of final exam, tests, assignments and projects.

Soft skills such as lifelong learning, project management, awareness on sustainability issues and social responsibilities as an engineer as well as engineering ethics are embedded in the assignments, case studies and projects.

The attainment of soft skills is difficult to measure. The assessment of soft skills must be conducted in several courses across the discipline to be proof of acquired skill.

REVISIONS IN PROGRESS

REVISIONS OF ABET CRITERIA 3 AND 5 - PROPOSAL

In an effort to keep the criteria relevant, fresh and compelling.

Criterion 3 Student Outcomes Criterion 5 Curriculum

Criterion 3 : to ensure that the outcomes are richer and measurable, but above all realisticThe EAC was receiving requests from constituent groups for additional outcomes to be included in Criterion 3Criterion 3 Task Force: Members of the task force represented domestic undergraduate and graduate engineering programs, industry, and professional societies.

SHORTCOMINGS REVEALED BY REVIEWS AND FEEDBACK

Shortcomings were reported in all 11 of the (a)-(k) components of Criterion 3, mostly at the weakness or concern level. The data collected revealed that programs had the most difficulty in determining the extent of outcome attainment with components :

3(d) (ability to function on multidisciplinary teams),3(f) (understanding of professional and ethical responsibility),

3(h) (a broad education to understand engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal context), 3(i) (recognition of the need for and ability to engage in life-long learning), and3(j) (knowledge of contemporary issues).

The Criterion 3 task force concluded that some of the (a)-(k) components were interdependent, broad and vague in scope, or impossible to measure. As a consequence, program evaluators were inconsistent in their interpretation of how well programs were complying with Criterion 3.

Some constituent groups independently informed the EAC that important outcomes were missing from the (a)-(k) list and they proposed additional outcomes. Communications with constituent groups took the form of email, letters, presentations, and position papers.Suggested additions to the list of outcomes brought the total to 75.

The Task Force grouped the suggestions into six topic areas that would drive a possible major change to Criterion 3.

This possible change would also serve to align ABET criteria more closely with Washington Accord graduate attributes including project management and finance.

The Criteria Committee examined and catalogued all inputs received. Further discussions in 2014-15 resulted in addition of a seventh topic area, so that the following topic areas would be addressed:

THE SEVEN TOPIC AREAS

1. Engineering problem solving,2. Engineering design,3. Measurement, testing, and quality assurance,4. Communication skills,5. Professional responsibility,6. Professional growth, and7. Teamwork and project management

The Criteria Committee will be collecting and analyzing all input received before June 15, 2016.

Based on feedback received and realizing the importance to engage as many perspectives as possible, the EAC has agreed to extend the deadline to June 30, 2016 for public comment.

SOME BASIC DEFINITIONS

Basic Science – Basic sciences consist of chemistry and physics, and other biological, chemical, and physical sciences, including astronomy, biology, climatology, ecology, geology, meteorology, and oceanography.

College-level Mathematics – College-level mathematics consists of mathematics above pre-calculus level.

Engineering Science – Engineering sciences are based on mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative application needed to solve engineering problems

Engineering Design – Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs, specifications, codes, and standards within constraints such as health and safety, cost, ethics, policy, sustainability, constructability, and manufacturability. It is an iterative, creative, decision-making process in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and the engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally into solutions.

Teams – A team consists of more than one person working toward a common goal and may include individuals of diverse backgrounds, skills, and perspectives.

One Academic Year – One academic year is the lesser of 32 semester credits (or equivalent) or one-fourth of the total credits required for graduation with a baccalaureate degree

CRITERION 5. CURRICULUM

The curriculum requirements specify subject areas appropriate to engineering but do not prescribe specific courses. The curriculum must support attainment of the student outcomes and must include:

(a) one academic year of a combination of college-level mathematics and basic sciences (some with experimental experience) appropriate to the program.

(b) one and one-half academic years of engineering topics, consisting of engineering sciences and engineering design appropriate to the program and utilizing modern engineering tool

(c) a broad education component that includes humanities and social sciences, complements the technical content of the curriculum, and is consistent with the program educational objectives.

Students must be prepared to enter the professional practice of engineering through a curriculum culminating in a major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating appropriate engineering standards and multiple constraints.

NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION

Pro-forma for Pre-Qualifiers TIER-II Institutions

PARTA- Profile of the Institute

A1. Name of the College:- Year of Establishment:-

Location of the College:-

A2. Address:- City:-

State:- Pin Code:-

Website:- E-mail:-

STD Code:- Phone No:-

Fax STD Code:- Fax:-

A3. Head of the Institution:-

Name:- Designation:-

Status of Appointment:-

A4. Contact details of Head of the Institution:-

STD Code:- Telephone No:-

Mobile:- E-mail:-

Fax STD Code:- Fax No:-

A5. Name of the Affiliating University:-

Address:- City:-

State:- Pin Code:-

Website:- E-mail:-



A6. Type of the Institution:

University Deemed University

Government Aided Autonomous

Affiliated

A7. Ownership Status:

Central Government State Government

Government Aided Self financing

Trust Society

Section 25 Company Any Other (Please specify)

Provide Details:

A8. Students Admissions (Institute level considering all programs):

CAY: Current Assessment Year CAYm1: Current Assessment Year minus 1 CAYm2: Current Assessment Year minus 2

Item CAY CAYm1 CAYm2

Sanctioned intake

Number of students admitted

Total Admitted/Sanctioned Intake= % Admitted

Average % Admitted

A9. Campus Information:-

Does the College have its own building:-

Sports Complex:-

Canteen and Hostel (If any):-

Medical Room:-

Computer Laboratories:-

Counselling and guidance:-

Placement:-

A10. Names of programs offered by the College:-

UG:-

PG:-

Note: - Please mention department wise.

A11. Programs to be considered for Accreditation vide this application.

S. No. Program Name

PART B- Program information as per point A11

B1. Provide separate Information for each program applied for:-

Name of

the Department

Name of the

programs running

Name of the

program to be

consider

-ed

Year

of Start

Intake

Increase

in intake, if any

Year of increase

AICTE Approval

Accreditation Status*

* Write applicable one:

Applying first time

Granted provisional accreditation for two years for the period(specify period)

Granted accreditation for 5 years for the period (specify period)

Not accredited (specify visit dates, year)

Withdrawn (specify visit dates, year)

Not eligible for accreditation

Eligible but not applied

B1.1.

B2. Student Admissions (Program specific):-

Name of the

Department

Name of the

program No. of Classrooms No. of Laboratories

No. of

Equipments per

Laboratory

CAY: Current Assessment Year

CAYm1: Current Assessment Year minus 1


B3. Information of Faculty

Atleast one Professor or Associate professor should be available exclusively for the

program under consideration

B4.Student Faculty Ratio (No of Faculty as per the sanctioned intake):- CAY: No. of Students in 2nd/3rd/4th Year :

No. of Faculty for the program (considering the fractional load) :


Sanctioned intake of the program

Number of students admitted in the Program


Average % Admitted

S.No. Designation/Numbers

Number of Faculty

in the Department

for both UG and PG

Number of Faculty

for the program

applied*

1. Professor

2. Associate Professor

3. Assistant Professor

4. Number of Ph.D

Student Faculty Ratio :

CAYm1:No. of Students in 2nd/3rd/4th Year :

No. of Faculty for the program (considering the fractional load)

Student Faculty Ratio:

CAYm2: No. of Students in 2nd/3rd/4th Year:



Average: [Addition of SFRs of CAY + CAYm1 + CAYm2]/3

B5.Faculty Cadre Proportion:-

(The reference Faculty cadre proportion is 1:2:6 i.e; Professor: Associate professor: Assistant professor)

Year

Professors Associate Professors Assistant Professors

Required F1 Available Required F2 Available Required F3 Available

CAY

CAYm1

CAYm2

Average

Numbers RF1= AF1= RF2= AF2= RF3= AF3=

Compliance status to Pre-Visit Qualifiers

S.N. Pre Visit Qualifiers

(Average of Assessment years)

Existence Compliance Status

Complied/Not Complied

Essential qualifiers

1 Vision, Mission & PEOs i. Are the Vision & Mission

of the Department stated in the Prospectus /

Website? ii. Are the PEOs of the

Program listed in the Prospectus / Website?

2 Whether approval of AICTE for the programs under consideration has been obtained for all the years including current year

3 Whether the Institute has received Zero deficiency report from the regulatory authority, i.e., AICTE, UGC etc. for the current academic session.

4 Whether admissions in the

undergraduate programs at

the Institute level has been more than 50% *

(average of the last three assessment years)

5 Whether admissions in the undergraduate programs under consideration has been

more than 50% ** (average of the last three

assessment years)

% Admission

6 Whether student faculty ratio

in the programs under consideration is better than or equal to 1:20

(average of the last three

assessment years)

SFR

7 Whether at least one Professor or one Associate Professor available in the respective Program/ Department

8 Whether number of available Ph.Ds in the department exceeds 10% of the required number of faculty

9 Whether the placement

ratio(Placement + higher studies) is greater than 40% (average of the last three

assessment years)

11 Whether two batches have passed out in the programs under consideration

Desirable parameters 1 Whether department has

program assessment and quality improvement committee. If so, its constitution and mandate.

2 Whether the departments under consideration receives

separately earmarked funds for

i. Maintenance of Laboratory/computation

al facilities(recurring funds)

ii. Up-gradation of laboratory/computation facilities(non-recurring funds)

3 Whether HODs possess Ph.D degrees for the programs under consideration

4 Whether number of available

Ph.Ds in the department exceeds 15% of the required number of faculty

5 Whether admissions in the undergraduate programs

under consideration has been more than 60% (average of the last three assessment years)

*Total number of students admitted in first year minus number of students migrated to other

institutions, plus the number of students migrated to this institution divided by the sanctioned intake.

**Total number of students admitted in first year in the respective program minus number of students

migrated to other programs/ institutions plus the number of students migrated to this program divided by

the sanctioned intake in the respective program.

Decision: If compliance status in all the cases is yes, then the institute shall be treated

as eligible for furnishing the e-SAR of the programs which may be considered for accreditation

as per procedure.

As far as desirable parameters are concerned, the Institutions are expected to meet these

parameters also. Although institutions which are non-compliant on these parameters may be

invited to prepare their SAR, it is expected that they would have taken necessary steps in this

direction by the time of actual submission of the same.

NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION

Pro-forma for Pre-Qualifiers TIER-II Institutions

PARTA- Profile of the Institute

A1. Name of the College:- Year of Establishment:-

Location of the College:-

A2. Address:- City:-

State:- Pin Code:-

Website:- E-mail:-



A3. Head of the Institution:-

Name:- Designation:-

Status of Appointment:-

A4. Contact details of Head of the Institution:-

STD Code:- Telephone No:-

Mobile:- E-mail:-

Fax STD Code:- Fax No:-

A5. Name of the Affiliating University:-

Address:- City:-

State:- Pin Code:-

Website:- E-mail:-



A6. Type of the Institution:

University Deemed University

Government Aided Autonomous

Affiliated

A7. Ownership Status:

Central Government State Government

Government Aided Self financing

Trust Society

Section 25 Company Any Other (Please specify)

Provide Details:

A8. Students Admissions (Institute level considering all programs):

CAY: Current Assessment Year CAYm1: Current Assessment Year minus 1 CAYm2: Current Assessment Year minus 2


Sanctioned intake

Number of students admitted


Average % Admitted

A9. Campus Information:-

Does the College have its own building:-

Sports Complex:-

Canteen and Hostel (If any):-

Medical Room:-

Computer Laboratories:-

Counselling and guidance:-

Placement:-

A10. Names of programs offered by the College:-

UG:-

PG:-

Note: - Please mention department wise.

A11. Programs to be considered for Accreditation vide this application.

S. No. Program Name

PART B- Program information as per point A11

B1. Provide separate Information for each program applied for:-

Name of

the Department

Name of the

programs running

Name of the

program to be

consider

-ed

Year

of Start

Intake

Increase

in intake, if any

Year of increase

AICTE Approval

Accreditation Status*

* Write applicable one:

Applying first time

Granted provisional accreditation for two years for the period(specify period)

Granted accreditation for 5 years for the period (specify period)

Not accredited (specify visit dates, year)

Withdrawn (specify visit dates, year)

Not eligible for accreditation

Eligible but not applied

B1.1.

B2. Student Admissions (Program specific):-

Name of the

Department

Name of the

program No. of Classrooms No. of Laboratories

No. of

Equipments per

Laboratory

CAY: Current Assessment Year



B3. Information of Faculty

Atleast one Professor or Associate professor should be available exclusively for the

program under consideration

B4.Student Faculty Ratio (No of Faculty as per the sanctioned intake):- CAY: No. of Students in 2nd/3rd/4th Year :

No. of Faculty for the program (considering the fractional load) :


Sanctioned intake of the program

Number of students admitted in the Program


Average % Admitted

S.No. Designation/Numbers

Number of Faculty

in the Department

for both UG and PG

Number of Faculty

for the program

applied*

1. Professor

2. Associate Professor

3. Assistant Professor

4. Number of Ph.D

Student Faculty Ratio :

CAYm1:No. of Students in 2nd/3rd/4th Year :



CAYm2: No. of Students in 2nd/3rd/4th Year:



Average: [Addition of SFRs of CAY + CAYm1 + CAYm2]/3

B5.Faculty Cadre Proportion:-

(The reference Faculty cadre proportion is 1:2:6 i.e; Professor: Associate professor: Assistant professor)

Year

Professors Associate Professors Assistant Professors

Required F1 Available Required F2 Available Required F3 Available

CAY

CAYm1

CAYm2

Average

Numbers RF1= AF1= RF2= AF2= RF3= AF3=

Compliance status to Pre-Visit Qualifiers

S.N. Pre Visit Qualifiers

(Average of Assessment years)

Existence Compliance Status

Complied/Not Complied

Essential qualifiers

1 Vision, Mission & PEOs i. Are the Vision & Mission

of the Department stated in the Prospectus /

Website? ii. Are the PEOs of the

Program listed in the Prospectus / Website?

2 Whether approval of AICTE for the programs under consideration has been obtained for all the years including current year

3 Whether the Institute has received Zero deficiency report from the regulatory authority, i.e., AICTE, UGC etc. for the current academic session.

4 Whether admissions in the

undergraduate programs at

the Institute level has been more than 50% *

(average of the last three assessment years)

5 Whether admissions in the undergraduate programs under consideration has been

more than 50% ** (average of the last three

assessment years)

% Admission

6 Whether student faculty ratio

in the programs under consideration is better than or equal to 1:20

(average of the last three

assessment years)

SFR

7 Whether at least one Professor or one Associate Professor available in the respective Program/ Department

8 Whether number of available Ph.Ds in the department exceeds 10% of the required number of faculty

9 Whether the placement

ratio(Placement + higher studies) is greater than 40% (average of the last three

assessment years)

11 Whether two batches have passed out in the programs under consideration

Desirable parameters 1 Whether department has

program assessment and quality improvement committee. If so, its constitution and mandate.

2 Whether the departments under consideration receives

separately earmarked funds for

i. Maintenance of Laboratory/computation

al facilities(recurring funds)

ii. Up-gradation of laboratory/computation facilities(non-recurring funds)

3 Whether HODs possess Ph.D degrees for the programs under consideration

4 Whether number of available

Ph.Ds in the department exceeds 15% of the required number of faculty

5 Whether admissions in the undergraduate programs

under consideration has been more than 60% (average of the last three assessment years)

*Total number of students admitted in first year minus number of students migrated to other

institutions, plus the number of students migrated to this institution divided by the sanctioned intake.

**Total number of students admitted in first year in the respective program minus number of students

migrated to other programs/ institutions plus the number of students migrated to this program divided by

the sanctioned intake in the respective program.

Decision: If compliance status in all the cases is yes, then the institute shall be treated

as eligible for furnishing the e-SAR of the programs which may be considered for accreditation

as per procedure.

As far as desirable parameters are concerned, the Institutions are expected to meet these

parameters also. Although institutions which are non-compliant on these parameters may be

invited to prepare their SAR, it is expected that they would have taken necessary steps in this

direction by the time of actual submission of the same.

Taxonomy of Teaching, Learning and Assessment

N J Rao and K Rajanikanth

[email protected]; [email protected]

Why a Taxonomy?

2

Dimensions of Learning

• Cognitive– Cognitive Processes– Knowledge Categories

• Affective (Emotion)• PsychomotorAll three dimensions are involved to varying degrees

in all experiences and activities• Spiritual

3

4

Integrated Experiences

4

5

Dominantly Cognitive

5

6

Dominantly Affective

6

7

Dominantly Psychomotor

7

8

Changing Domains

8

Cognitive Processes

Anderson/Bloom’s Taxonomy• Remember• Understand• Apply• Analyze• Evaluate• Create

9

Remember

• Remembering involves retrieving relevant knowledge from long-term memory

• The relevant knowledge may be factual, conceptual, procedural, or some combination of these

• Remembering knowledge is essential for meaningful learning and problem solving as that knowledge is used in more complex tasks

• Action verbs: Recognize, recall, list, mention, state, draw, label, define, name, describe, prove a theorem etc.

10

Understand

• We are said to understand when we are able to construct meaning from instructional messages

• Instructional messages can be verbal, pictorial/ graphic or symbolic

• Instructional messages are received during lectures, demonstrations, field trips, performances, or simulations, in books or on computer monitors

11

Action verbs for ‘Understand’

• Interpret: translate, paraphrase, represent and clarify

• Exemplify: Illustrate and instantiate • Classify: Categorize and subsume • Summarize: Generalize and abstract • Infer: Find a pattern • Compare: Contrast, match, and map • Explain: Construct a model

12

Apply

• Using procedures to perform exercises or solve problems

• Closely linked with procedural knowledge Action verbs: • Execute/Implement: determine, calculate,

compute, estimate, solve, draw, relate, modify, etc.

13

Analyze

Involves breaking material into its constituent parts and determining how the parts are related to one another and to an overall structure• Differentiate: Discriminate, differentiate, focus and

select (Distinguishing relevant parts or important parts from unimportant parts of presented material)

• Organize: Structure, integrate, find coherence, outline, and parse (Determine how elements fit or function within a structure)

• Attribute: Deconstruct (Determine a point of view, bias, values, or intent underlying presented material

14

Analyze activities• developing one’s perspective: creating or exploring

beliefs, arguments, or theories • clarifying issues, conclusions, or beliefs • evaluating the credibility of sources of information• questioning deeply: raising and pursuing root or

significant questions• reading critically: clarifying or critiquing texts• examining or evaluating assumptions • distinguishing relevant from irrelevant facts • recognizing contradictions • exploring implications and consequences

15

Analysis in Engineering

• Use of the verb ‘analyze’ in engineering is bit tricky• It is not easy to design any questions in this

category in limited time written examinations• Analyse activities can be included in assignments

related to case studies, projects, term papers and field studies

16

Evaluate

• Make judgments based on criteria and standards • Criteria used include quality, effectiveness,

efficiency and consistency • The standards may be either quantitative or

qualitative

17

Evaluate: Action Verbs

• Check: Test, detect, monitor, coordinate • Critique: Judge (Accuracy, adequacy,

appropriateness, clarity, cohesiveness, completeness, consistency, correctness, credibility, organization, reasonableness, reasoning, relationships, reliability, significance, standards, usefulness, validity, values, worth, criteria, standards, and procedures)

18

Create• Involves putting elements together to form a

coherent or functional whole • While it includes objectives that call for unique

production, also refers to objectives calling for production that students can and will do

Action verbs: • Generate: Classify systems, concepts, models,

explanations, generalizations, hypotheses, predictions, principles, problems, questions, stories, theories)

• Plan (design) • Produce

19

Critical Thinking

• Critical thinking refers to the deep, intentional and structured thinking process that is aimed at analyzing and conceptualizing information, experiences, observation, and existing knowledge for the purpose of creating original and creative solutions for the challenges encountered

• Critical thinking is systematic and holistic in the sense that while examining a proposed solution, it examines its impact and consequences on other parts of the system thus ensuring that a solution at one level of the system does not create challenges and difficulties somewhere else

20

Critical Thinking

• Thinking critically requires a positive open and fair mindset that is able to objectively examine the available information and is aware of the laid assumptions and limitations brought about by them.

• Critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating; thinking with a view to improving it

Problem Solving

• Problem solving involves Apply, Analyze, Evaluate and Create processes

22

Nature of Engineering Courses

• The frameworks with in which majority of engineering and engineering science courses are dealt with are fairly well defined

• Solution of open ended problems is attempted in engineering programs mostly through projects and sometimes through assignments where time for solving is not a major limitation

• Assessment items in class tests and end-semester examinations dominantly belong to the Remember, Understand and Apply cognitive levels

23

Higher Orders of Learning/ Deep Learning/Meaningful Learning

• Apply (Implement) • Analyze • Evaluate • Create

24

25

CATEGORIES OF KNOWLEDGE

25

Knowledge

• The problem of characterizing knowledge is an enduring question of philosophy and psychology

• Knowledge is organized and structured by the learner in line with a cognitivist-constructivist tradition

• Knowledge is domain specific and contextualized

26

Knowledge

General Categories• Factual• Conceptual• Procedural• Metacognitive

Categories specific to Engineering• Fundamental Design Principles• Criteria and Specifications• Practical Constraints• Design Instrumentalities

27

Factual Knowledge

• basic elements students must know if they are to be acquainted with the discipline or solve any of the problems in it

• exists at a relatively low level of abstractionSubtypes of Factual Knowledge• Knowledge of terminology (e.g., words, numerals,

signs, pictures)• Knowledge of specific details (including descriptive

and prescriptive data) and elements

28

Samples of ‘Factual’ Knowledge

• Terminology: Signal-to-noise ratio, low-pass filter, VCVS, CCCS, power factor etc.

Specific details: • Power supply frequency in India is 50 Hz• Semiconductor devices fail above 120OC• Ball grid array packaging can provide for more that

200 input-output pins• TI and Analog Devices are two semiconductor

manufacturers making a wide variety of analog ICs

29

Conceptual Knowledge

• A concept denotes all of the entities, phenomena, and/or relations in a given category or class by using definitions.

• Concepts are abstract in that they omit the differences of the things in their extension

• Classical concepts are universal in that they apply equally to every thing in their extension.

• Concepts are also the basic elements of propositions, much the same way a word is the basic semantic element of a sentence.

30

Conceptual Knowledgeincludes • knowledge of categories and classifications, and the

relationships between and among them • schemas, mental models, or implicit or explicit

theories Schemas and models, and theories represent • how a particular subject matter is organized and

structured • how the different parts or bits of information are

interconnected and interrelated in a more systematic manner

• how these parts function together

31

Examples of Conceptual Knowledge

• Force, acceleration, velocity, mass, voltage, current, temperature, entropy, stress, strain

• Kirchoff’s laws• Laws of thermodynamics

32

Procedural Knowledge

• is the “knowledge of how” to do something• it often takes the form of a series or sequence of

steps to be followed. • includes knowledge of skills, algorithms,

techniques, and methods, collectively known as procedures

• also includes knowledge of the criteria used to determine when to use various procedures.

• is specific or germane to particular subject matters or academic disciplines

33

Examples of Procedural Knowledge

• Solving matrix differential equation• Preparing a truth-table from a logic expression• Drawing a Bode plot• Designing a filter as per specifications

34

Metacognitive Knowledge

• is knowledge about cognition in general as well as awareness of and knowledge about one’s own cognition.

Categories of Metacognitive knowledge• Assessing the task at hand• Evaluating one’s own strengths and weaknesses• Planning an appropriate approach• Applying strategies and monitoring performance• Reflecting and adjusting one’s own approach• Beliefs about intelligence and learning

35

Fundamental Design ConceptsOperational principles of devices, and components within

a device.Examples• A device can perform a variety of tasks by

incorporating memory into it.• A device that has two well defined states can be

used as a memory unit.• Stepping movement can be created through

interaction between two salient magnetic fields.• An airfoil, by virtue of it shape, in particular its sharp

trailing edge, generates lift when inclined at an angle to the air stream.

36

Criteria and Specifications• It is necessary to translate the qualitative goals for

the device into specific, quantitative goals. • Design criteria vary widely in perceptibility. Examples• Any power converter should have efficiency above

95%.• The speed control unit for the dc motor should not

create excessive harmonic distortion on the power line.

• The SMPS output should have an output regulation of 0.5%.

• The speed of the dc motor should be controlled over a speed range of 1 to 300 RPM with an accuracy of 0.05%.

37

Practical Constraints• an array of less sharply defined considerations

derived from experience in practice, considerations that frequently do not lend themselves to theorizing, tabulation, or programming into a computer.

Examples• The legend should be written above the switch on

the front panel• The indicator lamp should be above the switch• The clearances that must be allowed between

physical parts in equipment for tools and hands to reach different parts

• The design should be completed within two months

38

Design Instrumentalities

• Procedural knowledge including the procedures, way of thinking, and judgmental skills by which it is done.

Examples1. Top-down approach to the design of a product2. Phasing of development of a product3. Structuring of an electronic product4. Design walkthroughs.5. Identify all members of the team early on and

include every member in the group communications from the outset.

39

Taxonomy Table

• It is a table of six cognitive processes (columns) and eight categories of knowledge (rows).

• Each cell represents a specific combination of cognitive process and a category of knowledge.

40

4141

Knowledge CategoriesCognitive Processes

Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create

Factual

Conceptual

Procedural

Fundamental Design

Principles

Criteria & Specifications

Practical Constraints

Design instrumentalities

Metacognitive

Taxonomy Table (Anderson-Bloom-Vincenti)

Alignment

• Alignment refers to the correspondence of learning objectives, assessment and instructional activities

42

Psychomotor domain

• It includes physical movement, coordination, and use of the motor-skill areas. (Simpson, 1972)

• Development of these skills requires practice and is measured in terms of speed, precision, distance, procedures, or techniques in execution.

43

Affective Domain

• Proposed in 1956 by Krothwohl, Bloom, and Masia• Difficult to structure• Catch all: self-concept, motivation, interests,

attitudes, beliefs, values, self-esteem, morality, ego development, feelings, need achievement, locus of control, curiosity, creativity, independence, mental health, personal growth, group dynamics, mental imagery and personality

44

Relation between the three domains

• Cognitive, affective and psychomotor activities are not independent of one another

• Instruction needs to pay attention to these dependencies

46

Assessment Determines the Quality of Learning

N.J. Rao

Students learn better when� they are provided information about the goals

of the course (course outcomes they should acquire), their responsibilities, and the criteria used to evaluate their performance � assessment is in alignment with the course

outcomes� instruction is designed and done to facilitate

students to acquire the stated course outcomes� they are actively engaged and challenged at the

right level

June 2015 2N.J. Rao

njrao1

njrao1 njrao, 11/18/2013

Communicating Outcomes

� Program Educational Objectives� Program Outcomes (NBA)� Program Specific Outcomes� Course Outcomes

◦ Competencies

� Syllabus

June 2015 N.J. Rao 3

Syllabus� Aim of the course� Course Overview and Context� Course Outcomes: 6+2� Course Competencies: 15+5� Content of the Course as a list of topics� Learning Resources� Assessment Pattern� Attendance Policy� Instruction schedule� Assignments


Syllabus (2)� Evaluation procedures for tests and assignments� Late assignment submission policy� Make-up examination/work policy� Citation style for papers� Behavior expectations� Academic dishonesty/cheating/plagiarism� Instructor and Teaching Assistant contact information� Accommodation of students who are challenged


Assessment� Assessment should be in alignment with the

course outcomes� Alignment is defined in terms of cognitive levels of

course outcomes� Course Outcome and the items to test the course

outcome are in the same cell of taxonomy table


Taxonomy Table and Alignment


Knowledg Categories

Cognitive Processes


Factual

Conceptual TI3 TI2 C1 TI1

Procedural

Metacognitive

Assessment� Assessment is a measure of performance � Evaluation is an interpretation of assessment � Assessment drives student learning � Our assessment tools tell students what we

consider to be important � Teachers guide students to learn through their

assessments � It is a glue that links the components of a course -

its content, instructional methods, and skills development


Same course, different tests


Test Items/Items and Questions� Questions + Additional related information =

Test Items/ItemsAdditional Information/Tags� Time expected to be taken to solve by an

average student� Sample answer� Hints� Tags including, competency code, cognitive level,

knowledge category, difficulty level etc.


Assessment Items

� Questions to be answered� Assignment Problems� Laboratory experiments to be conducted� Projects to be done� Field work� Reports to be written� Presentations to be made


Assessment Instruments

� Are a collection of assessment items� Have a purpose and context� Contain different types of itemsExamples� Midterm tests� Final examinations� Group Projects


Types of Assessment

� Formative Assessment (Assessment for Learning or Educative Assessment)

� Summative Assessment (Assessment of Learning)


Types of Test Items

� Written Test Items ◦ Selection type ◦ Supply type

� Performance Test Items


Selection Type Items

� True/False � Multiple Choice (with single or multiple

answers) � Matching Blocks � Rearrangement � Checklists

� Rating Scales


Supply Type Items

� Completion� Sketch � Labeling � Short Answers � Structured Response � Viva Voce � Numerical Questions � Detailed Answers


Performance Type Test Items

� Experiments � Simulations � Projects � Prototypes to be built � Things/objects/equipment to be tested, � Discussions, � Presentations, � Field studies

� etc.


Quality of Assessment


Assessment to Scores (Written Instruments)


Summative Assessment Instrument


Valid and Reliable Assessment


Higher cognitive levels and Difficulty

� Difficulty Level refers to increased cognitive load, time to solve, larger numbers of facts to recalled, number of concepts involved, more elaborate procedures to be used etc.

� Difficulty does not automatically increase with cognitive level

� While one can reduce the difficulty level, assessment at higher cognitive levels should not be sacrificed


Sample Items of different Difficulty Levels1. Determine the time period of a simple pendulum of

length 1m on the surface of earth (DL1)2. Determine the time period of a simple pendulum of

length 1m when it is placed in a lift which is moving upwards with an acceleration 2ms-2 (DL2)

3. Determine the time period of a simple pendulum of length 1m with its bob dipped in a non-viscous medium of density one tenth of bob and is placed inalift which is moving upwards with an acceleration 2ms-2 (DL3)


Assessment Pattern� Specification of weightages to different cognitive

processes under different assessment instruments� Assessment instruments include assignments, class tests,

quizzes, presentations, end-semester examinations, mini projects, term papers etc.

� Weightages should depend on the cognitive level of a course outcome and the sessions allocated to it.

� Issues include addressing COs adequately and at the right cognitive levels


Weightages to COs


Class Sessions (approx.)

Marks for COi in 100 marks test instrument

100 x (Class Sessions/Total Class

Sessions)

CL

CO1 3 7 U

CO2 9 23 U

CO3 4 10 U

CO4 10 25 Ap

CO5 8 20 Ap

CO6 6 15 Ap

Distribution of marks� Marks for COi-(CL) = 0.6 x COi Marks� Marks for COi- (CL-1) = 0.6 x Marks for COi-(CL)� Marks for COi- (CL-2) = 0.6 x Marks for COi-(CL-1)� Marks for COi- (CL-3) = 0.6 x Marks for COi-(CL-2)


Assessment Pattern


Cognitive Level

Term Exam 1

Term Exam 2

Assignment Lab Mini Project

Final Examination

Remember

Understand

Apply

Analyze

Evaluate

Create

Evaluation

� Scoring (1, 2, 5, 10 or more marks)� Rubrics


Rubrics

� A rubric is a scoring tool for subjective assessments. � Rubric is a set of criteria and standards, linked

to competencies, used to assess a student's performance on performance test items. � Rubrics allow for standardized evaluation

according to specified criteria, making grading simpler and more transparent� http://rubistar.4teachers.org/


Sample: Presentation� Nonverbal Skills

◦ Eye contact, Facial Expressions and Posture � Vocal Skills

◦ Enthusiasm, and Vocalized Pauses (uh, well uh, um) � Content

◦ Topics announced, Time Frame, Visual Aids, Content Compliance, and Professionalism of Content and Presentation


BMS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

BENGALURU-560019

Autonomous Institution affiliated to VTU

Accredited by NAAC with ‘A’

Two day State Level Workshop on

OUTCOMES BASED EDUACATION:

TEACHING, LEARNING & EVALUATION

Date(s)

15th – 16th FEBRUARY 2016

Organised by

Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC), BMSCE

Sponsored by NAAC, Bengaluru

www.bmsce.ac.in

BMS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, BENGALURU

BMS College of Engineering (BMSCE) was founded in the

year 1946 by Late Sri. B. M. Sreenivasaiah a great visionary

and philanthropist and nurtured by his illustrious son Late

Sri. B. S. Narayan. BMSCE is the first private sector initiative

in engineering education in India. BMSCE has completed 69

years of dedicated service in the field of Engineering

Education. Started with only 03 undergraduate courses,

BMSCE today offers 13 Undergraduate & 16 Postgraduate

courses both in conventional and emerging areas. 15 of its

Departments are recognized as Research Centres offering

PhD/M.Sc (Engineering by Research) degrees in Science,

Engineering, Architecture and Management attracting

students from all over the country.

The Institution is approved by AICTE, New Delhi, and

affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU),

Belgaum, Karnataka. BMSCE is an AICTE recognized QIP

Centre in Engineering & Technology. It is the only

institution from India adopted by the Melton Foundation,

USA. BMSCE is in TEQIP Phase I and Phase II (a World Bank

project). BMSCE is accredited with A Grade by NAAC

(2013-2018) and 11 programmes have been accredited by

National Board of Accreditation (NBA), New Delhi under

Tier-I as per Washington accord. The College has one of the

largest student populations amongst engineering colleges

in Karnataka. Currently about 5000 students are pursuing

their higher education.

A strong alumni base of over 35,000 most of them occupying

coveted positions in various Educational, Industrial and

Research organizations. The college is being ranked

consistently among the top 20 engineering colleges in the

country by surveys conducted by various media sources.

PATRONS:

Justice S.R.Bannurmath, Hon. Chairman, BMSET

Dr. B.S. Ragini Narayan, Donor Trustee, BMSET

Dr. P. Dayanand Pai, Chairman, BMSCE

Mr. K. Jairaj, IAS (Retd), Trustee, BMSET

Mr. H.U. Talawar, DTE, GOK & Trustee, BMSET

ADVISORS:

Dr. K. Mallikharjuna Babu, Principal, BMSCE

Dr. G.N. Sekhar, Vice- Principal, BMSCE

INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE CELL (IQAC)

The aim of IQAC at BMSCE is to

Develop a system for conscious, consistent and catalytic

action to improve the academic performance of the

institution.

Promote measures for institutional functioning towards

quality enhancement through internalization of quality

culture and institutionalization of best practices.

IMPORTANCE OF THE WORKSHOP

Engineering plays a pivotal role in the improvement of

quality of life. Engineering Education has to be relevant and

effective to responsibly cater to this mandate. The pace of

technological changes is posing challenges for the

academia in terms of making the curriculum relevant to the

needs of the profession and effective in deployment. The

conventional content based teaching – learning followed in

the academic systems have proved to be less effective in

terms of effective design and delivery. Outcome based

education (OBE) has emerged as the way forward for the

academic community in addressing the challenges.

Outcomes based education is a process of curriculum

design, teaching, learning and assessment that focusses on

what the students can actually do after they are taught. It

attempts to embrace course outcomes with the knowledge,

skills attitudes and values that match the immediate social,

economic and cultural environment of society.

The change agents in the academic system are the faculty

members and they are expected to have the clear

understanding of mapping the existing curriculum to the

expected graduate programme outcomes through the

courses they teach adopting outcomes based approach. In

addition, an exposure to pedagogical practices, best

practices in academics will further empower the faculty

member to be able to effectively discharge their duty.

Engineering Education in India is changing from traditional

teaching, learning method to OBE. Accreditation agencies

like NAAC and NBA are facilitating this shift in engineering

education to enhance the quality and make the students

globally competitive.

EXPECTED OUTCOMES:

At the end of two day workshop, the participants will be

able to:

Write course outcomes that are required to meet the

Programme Outcomes (POs).

Map COs with appropriate Programme Outcomes

(POs).

Choose appropriate assessments for evaluation of

Course Outcomes (COs).

Introduce active learning techniques.

RESOURCE PERSONS:

1. Dr.K.Rajanikanth, Educational Expert

2. Dr.N.J.Rao, Educational Expert

3. Dr.K.Mallikharjuna Babu, BMSCE

4. Dr.R.V.Ranganath, BMSCE

5. Dr.B.Kanmani, BMSCE

6. Dr.H.S.Guruprasad, BMSCE

7. Dr.P.Meena, BMSCE

8. Dr.Suresh Ramaswwamyreddy, BMSCE

WHO CAN ATTEND?

Principals/Directors/Deans

Heads of the Departments

Faculty Members

IQAC Coordinators

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS

Limited to 45 - Selection criteria - first come first serve

basis.

REGISTRATION FEE

Rs. 500/- per participant

Participants will not be given TA/DA. They have to make

their own arrangements for accommodation.

HOW TO REACH?

BMSCE is located in the heart of Bengaluru city. It is about

5 kms from the Central Railway Station/ Bus Terminus.

IMPORTANT DATES:

Last date for submission of registration form: 10th Feb

2015.

Intimation to selected candidates through email: 12th Feb

2015.

Please mail scanned registration form to

[email protected].

Registration form can be submitted at the time of

registration. The payment is to be made in cash at the time

of registration.

For Further details contact:

Prof. Suresh Ramaswwamyreddy

Director, IQAC, BMSCE.

Mobile: 09483512589

email: [email protected]

[email protected]

TOPICS

Overview of OBE Dr. K. M. Babu

PEO, PO & PSO-

Expectations

Dr. R.V. Ranganath

Bloom’s Taxonomy Dr. K. Rajanikanth

Achieving Good Outcomes

through Good Assessment

Dr. N. J. Rao

Course outcomes-

Expectations

Dr. B.Kanmani

Assessment - Rubrics Dr .H.S. Guru Prasad

Active learning

techniques- case study

Dr. P. Meena

Continuous Improvement-

Essence of OBE

Dr.Suresh

REGISTRATION FORM

Name

Designation

Educational

Qualification

Institution

Experience

Address for correspondence:

e-mail

Mobile no.

Signature of the Candidate

Seal & signature of the Principal


