Accreditation manual-post-graduate-engineering-programs-rb
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Accreditation manual-post-graduate-engineering-programs-rb

on

  • 24 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
24
Views on SlideShare
24
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Accreditation manual-post-graduate-engineering-programs-rb Accreditation manual-post-graduate-engineering-programs-rb Document Transcript

  • ACCREDITATION MANUAL FOR POST GRADUATE ENGINEERING PROGRAMS National Board of Accreditation 4th Floor, Eastern Tower NBCC Place Bhismam Pitamah Marg Pragati Vihar, Lodhi Road New Delhi – 110003 CONTENTS
  • Foreword Introduction National Board of Accreditation Vision Mission Objectives of NBA About this Manual Self Assessment Report (SAR) Abbreviations Declaration CRITERIA – I TEACHING AND RESEARCH FACILITIES CRITERIA – II HUMAN RESOURCES: STUDENTS CRITERIA – III HUMAN RESOURCES : FACULTY CRITERIA – IV EVALUATION AND TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESS
  • Foreword All India Council for Technical Education ( AICTE )was set up to oversee the growth and quality of technical education of our country. AICTE established National Board of Accreditation (NBA) in September 1994. NBA is entrusted with the task of evolving a procedure for quality assessment in the technical education sector. Education sector, especially, technical education sector is growing at a rapid pace in India. The growth in quantity has to be matched with the developments on quality front. It is with this objective of enhancing the quality of technical education NBA has set up an agenda to improve the quality through the accreditation process. The ISO standardization in the industrial scenario and the standardization of technical education all over the world have highlighted the need for accrediting technical education programs. In this context, NBA has decided to bring out an Accreditation Manual for Post Graduate Engineering Programs. It is hoped that this manual will provide the Institutes( Offering Post Graduate Engineering Programs ) a comprehensive information about the Accreditation policy, criteria, procedure and guideline. This manual is not only meant for the Engineering Institutes offering Post Graduate programs but also for all the stake holders of the academic system such as teachers, students, parents, employers and the society at large. NBA provides a meaningful benchmarking among the competing educational programs. NBA has constituted several individual committees comprising renowned academicians in various disciplines to prepare draft documents for accreditation process. These inputs provided by all the committees are taken into consideration while compiling this document. Under the guidance of Dr B.C.Mazumdar, Chairman, NBA and with the unstinting support of Dr D.K. Paliwal, Member secretary the members of this committee have prepared the document. This document is open to suggestions from all the stakeholders for bringing any further improvements in the efforts of NBA to provide an efficient and effective methodology of Accreditation process for Technical Education in India.
  • Introduction Background Indian higher education system is the 3rd largest system in the world. Expansion of higher education sector is imperative. During the past two decades, education sector in India has seen phenomenal growth and development. The number of Institutions has multiplied exponentially, from the 30 odd colleges in 1950-51, to more than 20,000 odd colleges and from 20 universities to more than 500 universities awarding degrees, which include all types of Institutions, namely, central, state, private, govt. aided, deemed to be universities and Institutions of national importance. The challenge is to ensure its quality to the stakeholders along with the expansion. To meet this challenge, the issue of quality needs to be addressed, debated and taken forward in a systematic manner.
  • There are debates across continents as to who sets the standards for quality. The accreditation system prevailing in various countries provides a measure of educational quality. Accreditation is the principal means of quality assurance in higher education and reflects the fact that in achieving recognition, the Institution or program of study is committed and open to external review to meet certain minimum specified standards and also seeks ways to enhance the quality of education. There is a great deal of discussion in the country about the various approaches to quality measurement, especially, in the context of unprecedented expansion of higher educational Institutions and programs, introduction of newer disciplines, entry and operation of foreign Institutions in a variety of forms, and desire for global recognition through international accords (WTO/ Mutual Recognition, Washington Accord and Other National Protocols). With significant expansion of higher educational Institutions in India, both publicly and privately funded, a mandatory and robust accreditation system is required that could provide a common frame of reference for students and other stakeholders to obtain credible information on academic quality across Institutions. Through the accreditation process, an agency or its designated representative evaluates the quality of a higher education Institution as a whole or of a specific educational program, in order to formally recognize it as having met certain predetermined minimal criteria or standards. The result of this process is usually the awarding of a status of recognition. The accreditation process generally involves three steps with specific activities: (i) a self-evaluation process conducted by the faculty, the administrators and the staff of the Institution or academic program, resulting in a report that takes as its reference set of standards and criteria of the accrediting body; (ii) a study visit, conducted by a team of peers, selected by the accrediting organization, which reviews the evidence, visits the premises and interviews the academic and administrative staff resulting in an assessment report, including a recommendation to the accrediting body; and (iii) examination of the evidence and recommendation on the basis of the given set of criteria concerning quality and resulting in a final judgment and the communication of the formal decision to the Institution and other constituencies, if appropriate. The Eleventh Plan approved by the National Development Council (NDC) provides a three point agenda with regard to accreditation, namely; introduction of a mandatory accreditation system for all higher educational Institutions; creation of multiple rating agencies with a body to rate these rating agencies; department-wise ratings in addition to Institutional rating. Presently, accreditation
  • is not mandatory and there is no law to govern the process of accreditation. There are two Central bodies involved in accreditation of Institutions; the National Accreditation Assessment Council (NAAC) and the National Board of Accreditation Board (NBA). NAAC was set up in 1994 by the University Grants Commission (UGC) to make quality an essential element through a combination of internal and external quality assessment and accreditation. NBA was constituted by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), as an autonomous body, under section 10(u) of the AICTE Act, 1987. It is expected that with the passage of the legislation to provide for accreditation of higher educational Institutions and to create a regulatory authority for the purpose, many of the quality issues will be resolved. The spirit of continuous improvement is a prerequisite for any quality initiative. Educational Institutions are no exception to this. Always there is a room for further improvement. National Board of Accreditation The New Education Policy of 1986 recognized the need for a Statutory Body at the National level responsible for overseeing the growth and quality of Technical Education in the country. Accordingly, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) was established by an Act of Parliament in 1987. As a part of its programs and activities, AICTE set up National Board of Accreditation (NBA) in September 1994, in order to assess the qualitative competence of educational Institutions from Diploma level to Post-Graduate level in Engineering and Technology, Management, Pharmacy, Architecture and related disciplines. NBA conducts evaluation of programs of technical Institution on the basis of laid down norms.
  • NBA in its present form has come into existence as on autonomous body with effect from 7th January 2010, under the aegis of AICTE, with the objective of assurance of quality and relevance of education, especially in technical disciplines through the mechanism of accreditation of programs offered by the technical Institutions. Vision “To be a World Class Accrediting Organization by ensuring highest degree of credibility in assurance of Quality and Relevance of Professional Education and Training to all Stake-holders such as Academicians, Business Houses, Educational Institutions, Government, Industry, Regulators and Students and their Parents.”.
  • Mission “To stimulate the quality of teaching, self evaluation and accountability in higher education, which help Institutions realize their academic objectives and adopt teaching practices that enable them to produce high quality professionals and to assess and accredit the programs offered by colleges and/or Institutions imparting Technical and Professional Education.” Objectives of NBA The following are the broad objectives of NBA • To periodically conduct evaluation of technical Institutions or Programs on the basis of guidelines, Norms and Standards specified by it. • To develop quality conscious systems of technical education where excellence, relevance to market needs and participation by all stake holders are prime and major determinants. • To dedicate for building a technical education system, as facilitators of human resources, that will match the national goals of growth by competence, contribution to economy through competitiveness and compatibility with societal development. • To provide the quality benchmarks targeted at Global and National Stockpile of human capital in all fields of technical education. In line with the above, NBA has the mandate to fulfill the following specific objective of assessing and accrediting the academic programs. Assessment and accreditation shall be based on various criteria. This may include but not limited to Institutional mission and objectives; Organization and governance; Infrastructural facilities; Quality of teaching and learning; Curriculum design and review; Support services (library, laboratory, instrumentation, computer facilities etc.); and any other aspect as decided by the General Council (G.C.) and/or Executive Committee (EC) The main objectives of assessment and accreditation shall be to: a. Assess and grade the courses and programs offered by institutes/colleges their various units, faculty, departments etc. b. Stimulate the academic environment and quality of teaching and research in these Institutions; c. Contribution to the sphere of knowledge in its discipline; d. Motivate colleges and/or Institutions of technical and professional education for research, and adopt teaching practices that groom their students for the innovation and development of leadership qualities;
  • e. Encourage innovations, self evaluation and accountability in higher education; f. Promote necessary changes, innovations and reforms in all aspects of the working of colleges/ Institutions of technical and professional education for the above purpose; and g. Help Institutions realize their academic objectives. NBA shall ensure that the criteria referred to above for assessment and accreditation are: i) Reviewed periodically, revised and updated, as and when considered necessary, on the basis of experiences gained through their application and accordingly the techniques and modalities used for assessment are modified; ii) Objective and, to the extent possible, quantifiable; and iii)Publicized widely, particularly, in the academic community. NBA will facilitate to enhance the quality of technical education and help in establishing relevancy of technical education as per the needs of the industry and society at large. About this Manual This manual essentially deals with the accreditation process of Post Graduate Engineering Programs. There are three separate documents have been annexed with this documents, they are namely, 1. Self Assessment Report ( SAR ) 2. Evaluation – Guidelines 3. Evaluation- Report Attempts have been made to explain these documents as far as possible in this accreditation manual . Most of these documents are quite straightforward and quantifiable, however, there are few criteria / sections are subjective in nature. For these criteria the perception, experience, knowledge and judgment of an individual plays the most significant role. The document titled as “ Self Assessment Report “ is basically for the Institutions. Institutions offering Engineering Programs in Post Graduate level need to prepare the report as per the format of the SAR. The blank format of the SAR as appended at the last part of this document needs to be filled up by the institutions according to the information asked for. No deviation from this format will be accepted. No change in order or modification of the format will be entertained.
  • The document titled as “Evaluation-Guidelines” is essentially a guideline for the Evaluators. In this document attempts have been made to frame a guideline for the evaluation of the SAR submitted by the Institutions. The document titled as “ Evaluation – Report “ is the blank report format for the evaluators. Once the SAR is evaluated, the evaluators will place the scores in the blank report format along with their observations.
  • Self Assessment Report (SAR) SAR is having four parts. Part I essentially deals with the Institutional summary. Part I contains Criteria I, II and III. Part II deals with Department / Program Summary. Part II contains Criteria IV to X. Part III deals with Curriculum, Syllabi, Program Educational Objectives and Outcomes of the degree program. Part IV contains the list of documents / records to be made available during the visit. Abbreviations : CAY -- Current Academic Year e.g., __2010 – 11___ CAYm1 --- Current Academic Year minus one e.g., __2009 – 10___ CAYm2 --- Current Academic Year minus two e.g., __2008 – 09___ LYG -- Latest Year of Graduation e.g., __2007 – 08___ LYGm1 --- Latest Year of Graduation minus one e.g., __2006 – 07___ ( The word graduation means completion of studies for which degree is conferred , it could be UG studies or PG studies, as applicable ) CFY -- Current Financial Year e.g., __2010 – 11___ CFYm1 --- Current Financial Year minus one e.g., __2009 – 10___ Notes : 1. The UG program of the Department, to which the PG program belongs, should have been accredited.
  • 2. At least two batches of the concerned PG program should have graduated. 3. At least 33% of the faculty associated with the concerned PG program should have a PhD degree and the remaining with M.Tech / M.E in the same, or in the related areas. The minimum number of faculty in the program is 4 for a batch of 18 students. 4. The number of registered students in a batch should not be less than 5. 5. It would be greatly appreciated if precise and specific details, as requested in this format, are provided in tabular form and/or using bullets as far as possible. No detailed description should be included anywhere; do not include any detail/information which is not asked for. In case, you wish to add any data/information which is not asked for, kindly add in the annexure. 6. Include data for three consecutive years, unless otherwise specified. 7. Information sought is mostly meant to be the “Average” over last 3 years, as applicable. 8. In this manuscript, “Institution” is used interchangeably for college/Institute/ University and “Head of the Institution” for Principal/Director/Vice-Chancellor. Declaration This Self Assessment Report (SAR) is prepared for the Current Academic Year (__________) and the Current Financial Year (_________) on behalf of the Institution. I certify that the information provided in this SAR is extracted from the records and to the best of my knowledge, is correct and complete. I understand that any false statement/information of consequence may lead to rejection of the application for accreditation for a period of two or more years. I also understand that the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) or its sub-committees will have the right to decide on the basis of the submitted SAR whether the Institution should be considered for an accreditation visit. If the information of consequence was found to be wrong during the visit or subsequent to grant of accreditation, NBA has right to withdraw the accreditation granted, if any, and no accreditation will be allowed for a period of next two years or more.
  • Place: Signature, Name, Designation of the Date: Head of the Institution with Seal
  • CRITERIA – I TEACHING AND RESEARCH FACILITIES [200 Points] Minimum Qualifying Points: 130 I.P.1. LIBRARY BUDGET (over & above for the UG program) [50 Points] (a) Journal Subscription Budget [35 Points] Year Budget for Journal subscription for the program Expenditure incurred for Journal Subscription for the program CFY CFYm1 CFYm2 CFYm3 Average expenditure incurred for journal subscription ≥ Rs 5 lacs per year per program Assessment = 35 Points Otherwise, assessment will be prorated accordingly. Here the institutes should provide the budget and the actual expenditure incurred for journal subscription for the program for the last three financial years. They may list these journals with duration of subscription in the annexure.
  • (b) Book Subscription Budget [15 Points] Year Budget for Book subscription for the program Expenditure incurred for Book Subscription for the program CFY CFYm1 CFYm2 CFYm3 Average expenditure incurred for book subscription ≥ Rs 0.5 lacs per year per program Assessment = 15 Points Otherwise, assessment will be prorated accordingly. Here the institutes should provide the budget and the actual expenditure incurred for the purchase of the books for the program for the last three financial years. They may list these books in the annexure. I.P.2. COMPUTING & INTERNET FACILITIES IN THE DEPARTMENT [50 Points] (a) Number of computers and computing facility available for PG students in the department (based on Sanctioned Strength of Students) [30 Points]
  • Name of the Laboratory Number of Computers Available for PG Students Computing Facility Available Assessment = This criterion evaluates the computing facilities provided to PG students in the department. The institutes need to specify the number of computers available in different laboratories to the PG students which h are exclusively for their use. (b) Internet Connectivity [20 Points] Internet Connectivity Details: Assessment is based upon the widespread availability & quality of internet connectivity. Assessment = This criteria evaluates the internet connectivity based on availability, accessibility, speed and duration.
  • I.P.3. LABORATORY SUPPORT FOR TEACHING [50 Points] Name of the Laboratory Space Available Equipments in Working Condition Average Recurring Budget in the Last 3 Financial Years Average Recurring Expenditure in the Last 3 Financial Years Assessment will be based upon adequacy and quality of laboratories available in the department for the program. Assessment = This criterion evaluates the quality of laboratories available in the department for the program. The laboratories should be equipped with relevant equipment / machines / computers which are in working condition. Institutes must mention here the budget and actual expenses incurred for the recurring expenses. I.P.4. BUDGET FOR R&D [30 Points] YEAR Budget Allocated for R&D Items for which Budget was Allocated Expenditure Incurred Item for which Expenditures were Incurred Non- utilization of Allocated Budget, if any Reason for Non- utilization CFY CFYm1 CFYm2 CFYm3 This criterion evaluates the budget allocated to the R & D activities for the Department / Program over the last three financial years. It also seeks information about the expenditure details as well as justification for non utilization, if any.
  • (a) Budget Allocation [15 Points] Assessment is based upon the adequacy of the budget allocated for R&D activities over the past 3 years. Assessment = (b) Budget Utilization [15 Points] Assessment is based upon the proper utilization of the allocated budget. Assessment = I.P.5. FACULTY ROOM & PG STUDENTS’ ROOM [20 Points] ITEM Available ( Yes / No) Facilities Separate Faculty Room PG Students’ Room Assessment is based upon: i) Availability of separate faculty room with PC, internet, desk, rack and space for discussion with students. ii) Availability of room for PG students. Assessment = This criterion evaluates the availability of the rooms for Faculty as well as for PG students. The Institutes should mention the facilities available in these rooms. CRITERIA – II
  • HUMAN RESOURCES: STUDENTS [150 Points] Minimum Qualifying Points – 100 II.P.1 ADMISSION [40 Points] YEAR Sanctioned Strength of the Program Number of Students Admitted Percentage of seats filled Number of Students Admitted with Valid GATE Score Percentage of Students with Valid GATE Score CAY CAYm1 CAYm2 CAYm3 Average Percentage of seats filled through approved procedure = Average Percentage of Students Admitted with Valid GATE Score = YEAR Number of Students Admitted API = Academic Performance
  • Index = Average CGPA or Average Marks on a Scale of 10 (Compiled from the Graduation Records) CAY CAYm1 CAYm2 CAYm3 Average API = (a) Number of seats filled through the admission procedure approved by the University [15 Points] Assessment will be based on average percentage of seats filled through approved procedure and to be prorated accordingly. Assessment = (b) Quality of students as judged from their complete graduation records. [15 Points]
  • Assessment = 1.5×Average API (c) Number of students admitted having a valid GATE score [10] Assessment = 10×(Average percentage of students admitted with valid GATE score) This criterion evaluates the admission process as well as the quality of the students admitted to the program. II.P.2. SUCCESS RATE OF GRADUATION [15 Points] GI = Graduation Index = (Number of students graduated from the program) / (Number of students joined the program) YEAR Number of Students Graduated from the Program Number of Students Joined the Program GI LYG LYGm1 LYGm2 Average GI = Assessment = 15×Average GI This criterion evaluates the success rate of the students joined the program. II.P.3. PERFORMANCE IN COURSE WORK [40] API = Academic Performance Index
  • = Average CGPA or Average Marks on a Scale of 10 YEAR Number of Students in the Batch API LYG LYGm1 LYGm2 Assessment = 4×Average API This criterion evaluates the the performance of the students in the course work for the last three batches.. II.P.4. THESIS WORK [40] YEAR Number of Papers Presented In Seminar / Conference Number of Papers Submitted to / Accepted in Journals IPRs Filed CAY CAYm1 CAYm2 CAYm3 This criterion evaluates the quality of thesis work. The institutes need to report the number of paper presented in Seminar/ conference, also number of paper submitted to / accepted in journals and also IPRs fielded out of these thesis works. (a) Papers presented in Conferences, submitted to / accepted in journals / IPR files [20]
  • Assessment is based on the involvement of the students in these activities and their achievements. Assessment= (b) Quality and the relevance of the work done. A good number of thesis projects should be done in house. [20] YEAR Number of Students in the Batch Number of Thesis Conducted in house LYG LYGm1 List 1 List of 5 Conference / Seminar Papers Published by Students during Last 3 Years List 2 List of 5 Journal Papers Submitted to / Accepted in journals by the Students during the Last 3 Years List 3 List of the 5 Titles of the Thesis Work Conducted by the Students During the Last 3 Years Assessment is based on the relevance and quality of the above mentioned work. Assessment = II.P.5. CAREER GUIDANCE AND PLACEMENT [15 Points]
  • (a) Availability and Effectiveness of the Career Guidance Service [5] Assessment is based upon the nature, extent and effectiveness of the career guidance service available in terms of students’ satisfaction level. Assessment= This criterion evaluates the availability and of effectiveness of career guidance service. (b) Outcome of the Career Guidance Service [10] YEAR Number of Students Placed in Engineering Jobs Number of Students Placed in Non-Engineering Jobs Number of Students received Admission in the Ph.D. Program LYG LYGm1 Assessment is based upon the outcome of the career guidance service in terms of motivating students for Ph.D. program and better placements. Assessment = This criterion evaluates the effectiveness of the career guidance service available for the students last 2/3 batches. Detailed records of the graduated students may be Annexed. CRITERIA – III Human Resources: Faculty [350 points]
  • Minimum Qualifying Points 230 III.P.1. Student Teacher Ratio in Parent Department [50 Points] U1 = Number of Students in 2nd Year U2 = Number of Students in 3rd Year U3 = Number of Students in 4th Year P1 = Number of Students in PG 1st Year P2 = Number of Students in PG 2nd Year F = Total Number of Faculty Members in the Parent Department S=Number of Students in the Parent Department = U1 + U2 + U3 + P1 + P2 Student Teacher Ratio (STR) = S / F Maximum STR = 14 Ideal STR = 10 Assessment = 50× [Ideal STR / Actual STR], subject to maximum of 50. Year U1 U2 U3 P1 P2 S F STR Assessment CAY CAYm1
  • CAYm2 CAYm3 Average Assessment = This criterion evaluates the Student Teacher Ration in the Parent Department. If STR is higher than the maximum value ( 14:1 ) then justification may be annexed. III.P.2. FACULTY STRENGTH IN PG PROGRAM [50 Points] X = Number of faculty members with Ph.D available for PG Program Y = Number of faculty members with Ph.D. / M.Tech. / M.E available for PG Program Assessment will be done on the basis of the number of faculty members with Ph.D./M.Tech./M.E., available for the PG program. [ Minimum number suggested: 4] Assessment = 50× [X/Y] Average Assessment = This criterion essentially evaluates the faculty strength in terms of their number and qualification. A detailed list of faculty members along with their qualification may be annexed. III.P.3. QUALIFICATIONS OF FACULTY IN THE DEPARTMENT [35 Points] X = Number of Faculty Members with Ph.D. Y = Number of Faculty Members with M.Tech. / M.E.
  • Z = Number of Faculty Members with B.Tech. / B.E. N = Total Number of Faculty Members in the Department Assessment = 2×FQI Where FQI = (18X + 9Y + 7Z) / N, subject to maximum of 35. Year X Y Z N FQI Assessment CAY CAYm1 CAYm2 Average Assessment = This criterion evaluates the qualification of the faculty over the last three academic years. III.P.4. FACULTY RETENTION [40 Points] Assessment will be done on the basis of records of last 5 years.
  • Assessment = 8×RPI/N Where, RPI = Retention Point Index = Points assigned to all faculty members having Ph.D. / M.Tech. [every faculty member is assigned 1 point for each year of experience at the institute, but not exceeding 5 points] N = Total Number of Faculty Members Name of Faculty Members Experience in the Institute - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Assessment = This criterion evaluates the retention of the faculty in the institute. III.P.5. SPONSORED R&D AND CONSULTING PROJECTS [50 Points] Faculty should be active in securing sponsored / consultancy projects through government / semi-government and private agencies. Quality of completed projects may
  • be assessed through project reports, publications / IPRs. New and continuing projects should be assessed by amount of funding, problem relevance and interim reports submitted. (i) Sponsored R&D Projects [35 Points] Name of Funding Agency Title of Project Name of PI Amount Status of the Project Publications / IRPs Assessment = (ii) Consultancy Projects [15 Points] Name of the Organization Funding the Consultancy Projects Name of the Coordinator Starting Date & Duration Amount Status Publication / IPRs Assessment = III.P.6. PROGRAM-RELEVANT RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS, IPR AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENTS [75 Points] Research publications and IPRs are the major indices for the growth of research.
  • Papers published should be peer reviewed ones and conference papers should be physically presented by one of the authors. Only published or accepted papers can be considered and not the ones which are only communicated. (i) Conference Publications [25 Points] List of refereed conference presentations made by the program faculty in the past 3 years. Name of the Faculty Name of the Conference Title of the Paper Year of the Conference Organizer of the Conference Online Availability _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Guidelines: (a) 0 – 15 points in the range of 0 – 5 conference presentations. (b) 15 – 25 points in the range of 5 – 10 conference presentations. Assessment = (ii) Journal Publications [35 Points] List of refereed journal papers by the faculty members in the past 3 years.
  • Name of the Faculty Name of the Journal Title of the Paper Year of Publication Name of Co-author Online Availability Guidelines: (a) 0 – 20 points in the range of 0 – 5 journal papers. (b) 20 – 35 points in the range of 5 – 10 journal papers. Assessment = (iii) IPR ( including books, monographs) / Product Development [15] Details of IPR filing / product development over past 3 years may be listed here. Guidelines: 0-15 points for 0-5 IPRs filing / product development over past three years Assessment = III.P.7. CONTINUING EDUCATION ACTIVITIES [50 Points] (i) Short-term courses, workshops / seminars, conferences organized [30 Points]
  • The institute should support continuing education activities. Efforts should be visible through short-term courses, workshops/seminars and conferences organized. The institute should actively encourage and fund its faculty members to attend such events in other institutes of repute. Details of short-term courses organized: Date Title Organized by Duration Number of Externally Registered Participants (List may be annexed) Guidelines for Assessment: At least one two-week long short-term courses conducted over past 3 years (singly or jointly with other programs or in association with other institutes / professional bodies) may be awarded 10 points. Assessment = Details of Workshops / Seminars Organized
  • Date Title Organized by Duration Number of Externally Registered Participants (List may be annexed) Guidelines for assessment: At least one 2-day workshop/seminar conducted over past 3 years (singly or jointly with other program or in association with other institutes / professional bodies) may be awarded 10 points. Assessment = Details of conferences organized: Date Title Organized by Duration Number of Externally
  • Registered Participants (List may be annexed) Guidelines for assessment: At least one conference conducted over past 3 years (singly or jointly with other programs or in association with other institutes / professional bodies) may be awarded 10 points. Assessment = In addition to the above guidelines it is to be noted that to qualify for full points, 20 or more externally registered participants should be there for short-term courses, 30 or more for seminars/workshops and 50 or more for conferences. Events which are conducted fully with in-house participants are to be awarded 50% points. (ii) Participation in the event conducted outside the institute [20 Points] Details of the events conducted outside the institute and attended by faculty members of the program.
  • Date Events Conducted Outside the Institute Organized by Duration Name of the Faculty Member Guidelines: Faculty members of the program attending 4 such events external to the institute over the past 3 years may be awarded at most 12 points (range 0 – 12 for 0 – 4 events). Faculty member of the program attending 10 such events external to the institute over the past 3 years may be awarded at most 20 points (range 12 – 20 for 4 – 10 events). CRITERIA – IV
  • EVALUATION AND TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESS [300 Points] Minimum Qualifying Points - 195 IV.P.1. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES (POs) [35 Points] Name of the Department Program Objectives (POs) Program Outcomes (POCs) In addition to the above list of POs and POCs, this is to be established that the program is not designed as an extension of the undergraduate program of the parent department. The program truly caters for a specialization of contemporary relevance. Assessment = IV.P.2. EVALUATION PROCESS: COURSE WORK [55 Points] (i) Evaluation Process – Class test / mid-terms schedules and procedures for systematic evaluation, internal assessments. [20 Points]
  • Assessment is based upon the efficacy of the evaluation process being followed. Relevant data may be inserted here. Assessment = (ii) Performance and Feedback [15 points] Assessment is based upon effective implementation of the following activities. o Post-semester feedback to students on their performance. o Extra care for poor performers and remedial classes o Comparison of mid and end semester performance Relevant data may be inserted here Assessment = (iii) Mechanism for addressing evaluation related grievances [10 Points] Assessment is based upon the efficacy of the mechanism being followed. Relevant data may be inserted here.
  • Assessment = (iv) Seminar and Presentation Evaluation [10 Points] Assessment is based upon the methodology being followed and its effectiveness. Assessment = IV.P.3. EVALUATION PROCESS: THESIS [40 Points] Details of Thesis Allocation, Evaluation and Presentation: Year Name of Candidate Name of Supervisor Title of Thesis Whether Evaluation Committee was Constituted (Yes/No) Name of the External Member Thesis Presentation Dates (a) Allocation of Students to Eligible Faculty Members (supervisors) [15 Points] Assessment =
  • (b) Constitution of Evaluation Committee with at least One External Member [15 Points] Assessment = (c) Schedule Showing Thesis Presentation at least twice during Semester [10 Points] Assessment = IV.P.4. TEACHING EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK SYSTEM [60 Points] (a) Guidelines for Student Feedback System [20 Points] Assessment is based upon the effectiveness of the guidelines for student feedback system. The design and effective implementation of the guidelines are very essential for student feedback system. Assessment = (b) Analysis of Feedback by HOD and the Faculty [20 Points] Assessment is based upon the methodology being followed for analysis of feedback and its effectiveness. Assessment =
  • (c) Corrective Measures and Implementation Followed [20 Points] Assessment is based upon the effectiveness of the implementation of the corrective measures and subsequent follow-up. Assessment = IV.P.5. SELF LEARNING BEYOND SYLLABUS AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES [30 Points] (a) Workshops / Seminars [5 Points] Date Theme of the Workshop/Seminar Organized by Duration Assessment is based upon the participation of the students of the program in these workshops/seminars and demonstration of its effectiveness as a self learning tool. Assessment = (b) Invited Lectures of Eminent Guests [5 Points] Details of Invited Lectures of Eminent Guests:
  • Date Name of the Eminent Guest Affiliation of the Guest Theme of the Lecture Assessment is based upon demonstrating the effectiveness of these guest lectures for self-learning. Assessment = ( c ) Use of Audiovisual aids [5 Points] Assessment is based upon use of audiovisual aids in the program and its effectiveness as a self-learning tool. Assessment = ( d ) Membership of professional societies [5 points] Assessment is based upon the demonstration of the students’ participation in the activities of the professional societies.
  • Assessment = (e) Visits to Institutions/Industries [5 Points] Details of Visits to Institutions/Industries: Date Name of the Institute/Industry Address Assessment is based upon justifying the above mentioned visits are effective means for self learning. Assessment = ( f ) Summer Internship [5 Points] Assessment is based upon the demonstration of the students’ participation in undertaking Summer Internship and its effectiveness.
  • Assessment = IV.P.6. PROGRAM OUTCOMES (POCs) [80 Points] (i) Mapping of Matrices: [60] Program Objectives (POs) (a) (b) (c) Program Outcomes (POCs) (a) (b) (c) Assessment is based on effective mapping of POs with POCs. Program Courses including Projects & Thesis (a) (b) (c)
  • Assessment is based on effective mapping of program courses with POCs. (ii) The Feedback from the Final Year Students[10] Assessment is based on demonstrating mechanism for collecting the feedback from the final year students and its effectiveness in fine tuning the program outcomes (POCs). (iii) The Feedback from Alumni and the Employers [10] Assessment is based on demonstrating the mechanism for incorporating the feedback from alumni and employers and its impact on the program outcomes (POCs). Assessment=