The document discusses Academic Performance Indicators (API) for evaluating faculty performance for career advancement under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) in universities and colleges. It outlines the categories and sub-categories of activities considered for API scoring, including: Category I for teaching, learning and evaluation; Category II for professional development, co-curricular and extension activities; and Category III for research and academic contributions. Tables are provided to calculate scores for each category based on hours spent on related activities. Minimum scores required at different stages are also indicated. The document provides an example calculation.
The document provides detailed guidelines for calculating Academic Performance Indicator (API) scores for promotion of teachers under the Career Advancement Scheme, 2010. It outlines the minimum requirements of API scores in different categories for different levels of promotion. Category I covers teaching, learning and evaluation activities. Category II includes co-curricular, extension and professional development activities. Research and academic contributions are assessed under Category III. The API scores are subject to verification by screening or selection committees for approving promotions. The document also includes tables to help calculate the API scores for activities under each category.
Performance appraisal/ assessment in higher educational institutes (HEI)Minakshi Atre
This document outlines assessment criteria and methodology for evaluating the performance of university/college teachers based on their teaching, research, and other academic activities. It provides details on calculating research scores for various publications and academic activities. Key points include:
- Assessment is based on evidence like publications, project sanctions, and student awards.
- Teachers are evaluated on teaching, administrative duties, student guidance, organizing seminars, and research output.
- Research publications are scored based on journal impact factor, with higher impact journals earning more points.
- Guidelines address scoring for joint publications and research supervision.
- The maximum points allowed from categories like invited lectures and policy papers is 30% of the total research score.
Professor/
Professor/
Professor
Professor
Equivalent
Equivalent
(Stage 4) to
(Stage 5) to
caderies
(Stage 1 to
(Stage 2)
Professor
Professor
Stage 2)
(Stage 3)
(Stage 4)
(Stage 5)
I Teaching-learning, Evaluation Related Activities (Category - I)
75 / Year
75 / Year
75 / Year
75 / Year
II Co-Curricular, Extension and Profession related activities (Category II)
15 / Year
15 / Year
15
This document contains details of an evaluation for a postgraduate program, including the program curriculum, teaching-learning processes, outcomes, student performance, faculty, laboratories/research facilities, and continuous improvement. It lists various criteria and sub-criteria to be evaluated on a scale of 0-10 or 0-20 points. For each section, the evaluators are to provide the marks awarded and observations justifying the marks. The overall aim is to evaluate the quality of the program and identify any gaps to help improve student learning outcomes.
This PPT provides information for pharmacy faculty in India, including guidelines on faculty requirements, committees that must be established according to regulatory bodies, calculations of student grades, the number of pharmacy colleges according to recent data, affiliation fees, tools for continuous evaluation, examination schemes, question paper formats, feedback collection, and safety measures for labs. It also defines metrics for assessing researcher impact such as the h-index, h5-index, and i10-index. Faculty are advised to check official websites for the latest information and notify the presenter of any errors in the PPT.
This document outlines the methodology for ranking engineering institutions in India as part of the National Institutional Ranking Framework. It describes the key parameters and their weightages used to determine overall rankings. There are 5 main parameters evaluated: Teaching, Learning & Resources; Research & Professional Practice; Graduation Outcomes; Outreach & Inclusivity; and Perception. Each parameter has multiple metrics for collecting data on things like faculty strength, publications, student placement rates, diversity, and peer reputation. Scores are calculated based on predetermined formulas and weighted to calculate overall rankings of engineering institutions in India.
The document provides details on the criteria and sub-criteria for evaluating NBA accreditation. It outlines 7 main criteria: 1) vision, mission and objectives, 2) curriculum and teaching, 3) course and program outcomes, 4) student performance, 5) faculty, 6) facilities, and 7) continuous improvement. Under each criterion are several sub-criteria with guidelines on documentation required and maximum points allotted. The document serves as a rubric for institutions to prepare self-assessment reports and obtain accreditation from the National Board of Accreditation.
This document provides a summary of the Academic Performance Indicator (API) scoring system used to evaluate faculty positions with academic grade pay. It outlines the criteria across three categories: (1) teaching, learning, and evaluation activities; (2) co-curricular, extension, and professional development activities; and (3) research and publications. For each category, the document lists the items, maximum scores, and the applicant's self-assessed and verified scores. The API aims to provide a standardized and transparent method for evaluating faculty based on verifiable performance metrics.
The document provides detailed guidelines for calculating Academic Performance Indicator (API) scores for promotion of teachers under the Career Advancement Scheme, 2010. It outlines the minimum requirements of API scores in different categories for different levels of promotion. Category I covers teaching, learning and evaluation activities. Category II includes co-curricular, extension and professional development activities. Research and academic contributions are assessed under Category III. The API scores are subject to verification by screening or selection committees for approving promotions. The document also includes tables to help calculate the API scores for activities under each category.
Performance appraisal/ assessment in higher educational institutes (HEI)Minakshi Atre
This document outlines assessment criteria and methodology for evaluating the performance of university/college teachers based on their teaching, research, and other academic activities. It provides details on calculating research scores for various publications and academic activities. Key points include:
- Assessment is based on evidence like publications, project sanctions, and student awards.
- Teachers are evaluated on teaching, administrative duties, student guidance, organizing seminars, and research output.
- Research publications are scored based on journal impact factor, with higher impact journals earning more points.
- Guidelines address scoring for joint publications and research supervision.
- The maximum points allowed from categories like invited lectures and policy papers is 30% of the total research score.
Professor/
Professor/
Professor
Professor
Equivalent
Equivalent
(Stage 4) to
(Stage 5) to
caderies
(Stage 1 to
(Stage 2)
Professor
Professor
Stage 2)
(Stage 3)
(Stage 4)
(Stage 5)
I Teaching-learning, Evaluation Related Activities (Category - I)
75 / Year
75 / Year
75 / Year
75 / Year
II Co-Curricular, Extension and Profession related activities (Category II)
15 / Year
15 / Year
15
This document contains details of an evaluation for a postgraduate program, including the program curriculum, teaching-learning processes, outcomes, student performance, faculty, laboratories/research facilities, and continuous improvement. It lists various criteria and sub-criteria to be evaluated on a scale of 0-10 or 0-20 points. For each section, the evaluators are to provide the marks awarded and observations justifying the marks. The overall aim is to evaluate the quality of the program and identify any gaps to help improve student learning outcomes.
This PPT provides information for pharmacy faculty in India, including guidelines on faculty requirements, committees that must be established according to regulatory bodies, calculations of student grades, the number of pharmacy colleges according to recent data, affiliation fees, tools for continuous evaluation, examination schemes, question paper formats, feedback collection, and safety measures for labs. It also defines metrics for assessing researcher impact such as the h-index, h5-index, and i10-index. Faculty are advised to check official websites for the latest information and notify the presenter of any errors in the PPT.
This document outlines the methodology for ranking engineering institutions in India as part of the National Institutional Ranking Framework. It describes the key parameters and their weightages used to determine overall rankings. There are 5 main parameters evaluated: Teaching, Learning & Resources; Research & Professional Practice; Graduation Outcomes; Outreach & Inclusivity; and Perception. Each parameter has multiple metrics for collecting data on things like faculty strength, publications, student placement rates, diversity, and peer reputation. Scores are calculated based on predetermined formulas and weighted to calculate overall rankings of engineering institutions in India.
The document provides details on the criteria and sub-criteria for evaluating NBA accreditation. It outlines 7 main criteria: 1) vision, mission and objectives, 2) curriculum and teaching, 3) course and program outcomes, 4) student performance, 5) faculty, 6) facilities, and 7) continuous improvement. Under each criterion are several sub-criteria with guidelines on documentation required and maximum points allotted. The document serves as a rubric for institutions to prepare self-assessment reports and obtain accreditation from the National Board of Accreditation.
This document provides a summary of the Academic Performance Indicator (API) scoring system used to evaluate faculty positions with academic grade pay. It outlines the criteria across three categories: (1) teaching, learning, and evaluation activities; (2) co-curricular, extension, and professional development activities; and (3) research and publications. For each category, the document lists the items, maximum scores, and the applicant's self-assessed and verified scores. The API aims to provide a standardized and transparent method for evaluating faculty based on verifiable performance metrics.
The document proposes new guidelines for the Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for university teachers and librarians. Key aspects include:
1) Steps for the new CAS via PBAS including completion of format, eligibility checks, approvals from principal, GB meeting and nomination process.
2) Eligibility criteria for stages 1-2, 2-3, and 3-4 including years of service and required Research Council (RC) or equivalent.
3) Scoring mechanisms and requirements across three categories - teaching activities, involvement in university activities, and research/academic contributions. Points are allocated for various activities on a yearly basis
The document summarizes a presentation about institutional effectiveness and assessment in community colleges. It discusses how instruction, assessment, strategic planning and accreditation are related and why they matter. Key points covered include how instructional and institutional planning should correlate with assessments to drive improvements, the components of institutional effectiveness, an overview of strategic planning processes, and how assessments provide evidence for continuous improvement and accreditation.
New K to 12 Grading System for Parents OrientationLu
1. The document outlines a new grading system for K-12 students in the Philippines that uses standards-based and competency-based assessment.
2. Formative and summative assessments are used to evaluate student progress, with summative assessments including written work, performance tasks, and quarterly assessments.
3. Student performance is recorded and computed using a weighted scoring system that assigns different percentages to various assessment components depending on the subject area. Final grades are recomputed if students take remedial classes.
The document provides information about the Department of Commerce at a university. It offers 5 undergraduate and 1 postgraduate commerce courses to around 1100 students. The courses follow a semester system and offer internships. It details the courses offered, faculty details including qualifications, research publications and presentations, seminars organized, projects undertaken, MoUs, student progression, utilization of grants, equipment procured, and future plans. The department intends to start new certificate courses and collaborate to offer skill enhancement training.
The document provides guidelines for students completing a mandatory 8-week summer training project as part of their MBA program. The objective of the project is to expose students to the functioning of an organization and explore business problems and solutions. Students will be supervised by both a corporate guide and faculty guide. Students must follow guidance on professional conduct and submit a 75-125 page typed report on their project including sections on the organization, objectives, methodology, findings and recommendations. The report will be evaluated based on content and presentations.
The document outlines the assessment methodology for internships that are mandatory for all students in Andhra Pradesh as part of the revised curriculum. It details the learning outcomes and evaluation process for three internships: 1) A community service project after the first year, 2) An apprenticeship/internship after the second year, and 3) A semester-long apprenticeship during the fifth/sixth semester. For each internship, students are evaluated based on a project log, implementation, report, and presentation. Marks are converted to letter grades that factor into students' GPAs. The final internship involves both internal and external assessment including employer feedback.
This PPT is presented at One-Day State Level Seminar on "NAAC Assessment and Accreditation Process in Affiliated Colleges" organized by IQAC, Asannagar MMT College, Nadia in collaboration with Nabadwip Vidyasagar College, Nadia on 15th July, 2023
The document outlines the format and contents for a Self Assessment Report (SAR) for undergraduate pharmacy programs seeking first time accreditation from the National Board of Accreditation.
The SAR contains 3 parts - Part A covers institutional information, Part B includes criteria summary and self assessment against each criteria, and Part C is a declaration by the institution.
Part B assesses the program based on 7 program level criteria and 2 institute level criteria. Criterion 2 assesses the program curriculum and teaching-learning processes, and outlines details required around delivery of syllabus contents, initiatives to enhance teaching, quality of student projects and industry interaction. Criterion 3 requires establishing correlation between courses and program outcomes, defining course outcomes
Triangulation in Teaching Assessment & learning Outcomes (2) (1)Sheema Haider
This document discusses the concept of triangulation in teaching, assessment, and learning outcomes. It defines triangulation as collecting evidence of student learning from conversations (intended learning outcomes), observations (teaching methods), and products (assessments). The document emphasizes the need to establish clear links between these three elements. It provides examples of mapping intended learning outcomes to specific teaching strategies and assessment methods. The conclusion is that faculty need education on developing intended learning outcomes, incorporating innovative teaching methods focused on the outcomes, and using assessment based on the outcomes from multiple sources.
The document discusses the history and development of curriculum in the Philippines. It outlines the motives and influences that have shaped curriculum over time, including religious, political, utilitarian, and mass education factors. The document also details the major curriculum approaches used in the Philippines, including the K-12 Basic Education Curriculum currently implemented. It describes the standards, assessment methods, grading system, and reporting process of the Philippine curriculum.
The document provides information about the Educational Science and Technology (EST) master's program at the University of Twente. It discusses the structure and content of both the full-time and part-time pre-master's and master's programs. The pre-master's program consists of 30 EC credits to prepare students from varying educational backgrounds. The master's program is 60 EC credits and can be completed in 1 year full-time or 1.5-2 years part-time. It focuses on Educational Design and Effectiveness or Human Resource Development and includes a core course, electives, and a final project. Graduates will be able to analyze and solve educational problems through research and design skills.
Professor in Stage 1
completing three years of service
shall be eligible, subject to meeting
the API Scores and selection
criteria, to move to Stage 2.
are with M.Phil/PG
Degree in Professional
Courses such as LLM,
M.Tech, M.V.Sc.,
M.D., or six years of
service who are
without Ph.D/M.Phil/
PG Degree in
Professional Courses.
(a) Minimum cumulative API scores
using PBAS scoring proforma
developed by the UGC as per the
norms provided in Table II (A).
(b) One Orientation and one
Refresher/Research
This document discusses the processes used to assess attainment of course and program outcomes at an engineering program. It describes how course outcomes are defined and mapped to program outcomes. Assessment tools like assignments, exams, and projects are mapped to outcomes. Attainment is calculated based on student performance and surveys. First year courses contribute to early outcome assessment. Actions are taken like improving questions and tutorials if outcomes are not fully attained.
EUR-ACE Accreditation and informationn gathering : PORTFOLIO DESIGN .pptxMezhoudiNesrine
The document discusses accreditation portfolios and their contents. An accreditation portfolio contains evidence that demonstrates an academic program meets accreditation standards. It includes course syllabi, materials, assessments, evaluations and other documentation for individual courses. The portfolio checklist outlines all required components for each course, such as exams, assignments, solutions, student samples and evaluation forms. Learning outcomes must be written to clearly articulate the skills and knowledge students will gain. Faculty are expected to submit high quality, complete portfolios and continuously improve courses based on assessment results and recommendations.
7_1_10b_Rebecca_F Day2015 General Instruction to I Year.pptxSundaresanB5
The document provides information about Anna University regulations for Bachelor of Engineering/Technology programs. Some key points:
- Anna University is a technical university located in Tamil Nadu, India. It oversees around 250 engineering colleges in the state.
- The regulations cover requirements for completing semesters, examinations, grading systems, project work and industrial visits.
- Students must earn a minimum number of credits to graduate, maintain 75% attendance, and pass each course with minimum 50% marks.
- Examinations include internal assessment and end-semester university exams. Students are awarded letter grades based on performance.
This document summarizes the National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research Involving Human Participants released by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in 2017. The guidelines cover 12 sections that establish general ethical principles, review procedures, informed consent processes, and regulations for research involving vulnerable groups or children. Key points include requirements for ethics committee review and clinical trial registration, guidelines for informed consent depending on the situation, ownership of biological materials and data, and conducting research during emergencies or with vulnerable populations.
Assessment & Accreditation Process of NAAC in Revised Accreditation Framework...Dr. Sreedhar Rao
The document provides guidance for institutions on filling out the Institutional Information for Quality Assessment (IIQA), which is the first step in the NAAC accreditation process. It outlines the registration process and requirements for completing the IIQA application. Key requirements include uploading affiliation letters, statutory approval documents, AISHE certificates, and AQAR reports. The document emphasizes ensuring accurate institution name matching and selecting the correct accreditation cycle number. It also provides tips for filling program details and uploading required documents.
More Related Content
Similar to academicperformanceindicatorsapi-190123081235.pdf
The document proposes new guidelines for the Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for university teachers and librarians. Key aspects include:
1) Steps for the new CAS via PBAS including completion of format, eligibility checks, approvals from principal, GB meeting and nomination process.
2) Eligibility criteria for stages 1-2, 2-3, and 3-4 including years of service and required Research Council (RC) or equivalent.
3) Scoring mechanisms and requirements across three categories - teaching activities, involvement in university activities, and research/academic contributions. Points are allocated for various activities on a yearly basis
The document summarizes a presentation about institutional effectiveness and assessment in community colleges. It discusses how instruction, assessment, strategic planning and accreditation are related and why they matter. Key points covered include how instructional and institutional planning should correlate with assessments to drive improvements, the components of institutional effectiveness, an overview of strategic planning processes, and how assessments provide evidence for continuous improvement and accreditation.
New K to 12 Grading System for Parents OrientationLu
1. The document outlines a new grading system for K-12 students in the Philippines that uses standards-based and competency-based assessment.
2. Formative and summative assessments are used to evaluate student progress, with summative assessments including written work, performance tasks, and quarterly assessments.
3. Student performance is recorded and computed using a weighted scoring system that assigns different percentages to various assessment components depending on the subject area. Final grades are recomputed if students take remedial classes.
The document provides information about the Department of Commerce at a university. It offers 5 undergraduate and 1 postgraduate commerce courses to around 1100 students. The courses follow a semester system and offer internships. It details the courses offered, faculty details including qualifications, research publications and presentations, seminars organized, projects undertaken, MoUs, student progression, utilization of grants, equipment procured, and future plans. The department intends to start new certificate courses and collaborate to offer skill enhancement training.
The document provides guidelines for students completing a mandatory 8-week summer training project as part of their MBA program. The objective of the project is to expose students to the functioning of an organization and explore business problems and solutions. Students will be supervised by both a corporate guide and faculty guide. Students must follow guidance on professional conduct and submit a 75-125 page typed report on their project including sections on the organization, objectives, methodology, findings and recommendations. The report will be evaluated based on content and presentations.
The document outlines the assessment methodology for internships that are mandatory for all students in Andhra Pradesh as part of the revised curriculum. It details the learning outcomes and evaluation process for three internships: 1) A community service project after the first year, 2) An apprenticeship/internship after the second year, and 3) A semester-long apprenticeship during the fifth/sixth semester. For each internship, students are evaluated based on a project log, implementation, report, and presentation. Marks are converted to letter grades that factor into students' GPAs. The final internship involves both internal and external assessment including employer feedback.
This PPT is presented at One-Day State Level Seminar on "NAAC Assessment and Accreditation Process in Affiliated Colleges" organized by IQAC, Asannagar MMT College, Nadia in collaboration with Nabadwip Vidyasagar College, Nadia on 15th July, 2023
The document outlines the format and contents for a Self Assessment Report (SAR) for undergraduate pharmacy programs seeking first time accreditation from the National Board of Accreditation.
The SAR contains 3 parts - Part A covers institutional information, Part B includes criteria summary and self assessment against each criteria, and Part C is a declaration by the institution.
Part B assesses the program based on 7 program level criteria and 2 institute level criteria. Criterion 2 assesses the program curriculum and teaching-learning processes, and outlines details required around delivery of syllabus contents, initiatives to enhance teaching, quality of student projects and industry interaction. Criterion 3 requires establishing correlation between courses and program outcomes, defining course outcomes
Triangulation in Teaching Assessment & learning Outcomes (2) (1)Sheema Haider
This document discusses the concept of triangulation in teaching, assessment, and learning outcomes. It defines triangulation as collecting evidence of student learning from conversations (intended learning outcomes), observations (teaching methods), and products (assessments). The document emphasizes the need to establish clear links between these three elements. It provides examples of mapping intended learning outcomes to specific teaching strategies and assessment methods. The conclusion is that faculty need education on developing intended learning outcomes, incorporating innovative teaching methods focused on the outcomes, and using assessment based on the outcomes from multiple sources.
The document discusses the history and development of curriculum in the Philippines. It outlines the motives and influences that have shaped curriculum over time, including religious, political, utilitarian, and mass education factors. The document also details the major curriculum approaches used in the Philippines, including the K-12 Basic Education Curriculum currently implemented. It describes the standards, assessment methods, grading system, and reporting process of the Philippine curriculum.
The document provides information about the Educational Science and Technology (EST) master's program at the University of Twente. It discusses the structure and content of both the full-time and part-time pre-master's and master's programs. The pre-master's program consists of 30 EC credits to prepare students from varying educational backgrounds. The master's program is 60 EC credits and can be completed in 1 year full-time or 1.5-2 years part-time. It focuses on Educational Design and Effectiveness or Human Resource Development and includes a core course, electives, and a final project. Graduates will be able to analyze and solve educational problems through research and design skills.
Professor in Stage 1
completing three years of service
shall be eligible, subject to meeting
the API Scores and selection
criteria, to move to Stage 2.
are with M.Phil/PG
Degree in Professional
Courses such as LLM,
M.Tech, M.V.Sc.,
M.D., or six years of
service who are
without Ph.D/M.Phil/
PG Degree in
Professional Courses.
(a) Minimum cumulative API scores
using PBAS scoring proforma
developed by the UGC as per the
norms provided in Table II (A).
(b) One Orientation and one
Refresher/Research
This document discusses the processes used to assess attainment of course and program outcomes at an engineering program. It describes how course outcomes are defined and mapped to program outcomes. Assessment tools like assignments, exams, and projects are mapped to outcomes. Attainment is calculated based on student performance and surveys. First year courses contribute to early outcome assessment. Actions are taken like improving questions and tutorials if outcomes are not fully attained.
EUR-ACE Accreditation and informationn gathering : PORTFOLIO DESIGN .pptxMezhoudiNesrine
The document discusses accreditation portfolios and their contents. An accreditation portfolio contains evidence that demonstrates an academic program meets accreditation standards. It includes course syllabi, materials, assessments, evaluations and other documentation for individual courses. The portfolio checklist outlines all required components for each course, such as exams, assignments, solutions, student samples and evaluation forms. Learning outcomes must be written to clearly articulate the skills and knowledge students will gain. Faculty are expected to submit high quality, complete portfolios and continuously improve courses based on assessment results and recommendations.
7_1_10b_Rebecca_F Day2015 General Instruction to I Year.pptxSundaresanB5
The document provides information about Anna University regulations for Bachelor of Engineering/Technology programs. Some key points:
- Anna University is a technical university located in Tamil Nadu, India. It oversees around 250 engineering colleges in the state.
- The regulations cover requirements for completing semesters, examinations, grading systems, project work and industrial visits.
- Students must earn a minimum number of credits to graduate, maintain 75% attendance, and pass each course with minimum 50% marks.
- Examinations include internal assessment and end-semester university exams. Students are awarded letter grades based on performance.
This document summarizes the National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research Involving Human Participants released by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in 2017. The guidelines cover 12 sections that establish general ethical principles, review procedures, informed consent processes, and regulations for research involving vulnerable groups or children. Key points include requirements for ethics committee review and clinical trial registration, guidelines for informed consent depending on the situation, ownership of biological materials and data, and conducting research during emergencies or with vulnerable populations.
Assessment & Accreditation Process of NAAC in Revised Accreditation Framework...Dr. Sreedhar Rao
The document provides guidance for institutions on filling out the Institutional Information for Quality Assessment (IIQA), which is the first step in the NAAC accreditation process. It outlines the registration process and requirements for completing the IIQA application. Key requirements include uploading affiliation letters, statutory approval documents, AISHE certificates, and AQAR reports. The document emphasizes ensuring accurate institution name matching and selecting the correct accreditation cycle number. It also provides tips for filling program details and uploading required documents.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
The document provides information about electrocardiograms (ECGs):
1) It defines an ECG as the physical translation of the electrical phenomena created in the heart muscles and produced as a graph by an ECG machine.
2) It describes how ECGs can be used to identify arrhythmias, ischemia, chamber hypertrophy, and other cardiac conditions.
3) It explains the basics of heart anatomy including the four chambers and valves, and how the electrical conduction system generates and transmits electrical impulses to trigger contractions.
AYUSH-Report of Steering Committee on AYUSH for 12th Five Year PlanDr. Sreedhar Rao
The document is a report from the Steering Committee on AYUSH for the 12th Five Year Plan (2012-2017).
The report provides an introduction and overview of the committee's work. It notes that the committee was formed to help formulate recommendations for the development of AYUSH systems in India's 12th Five Year Plan. The report reviews the progress of AYUSH schemes in the 11th Plan and provides strategic recommendations for the 12th Plan with a focus on education reforms, health services, quality standards, and research. The committee advocates aligning AYUSH programs and policies with India's national health goals and utilizing existing AYUSH infrastructure and resources.
10% of the total project cost
Junior Research Fellow: 15% of the total project cost
Technician: 10% of the total project cost
Chemicals/Glassware: 10% of the total project cost
Consumables: 10% of the total project cost
Travel: 5% of the total project cost
Contingency: 5% of the total project cost
Equipment: 25% of the total project cost (non-recurring)
Overheads: 10% of the total project cost
Total: 100% of the total project cost
The financial norms are indicative and may vary depending upon the nature of the project. However, the total cost ceiling would
Ultrasound uses high-frequency sound waves to produce images of the inside of the body in real-time without using radiation. It is widely used due to its availability, low cost, speed, and ability to show internal structures and blood flow. Common uses include examining organs like the heart, liver, and kidneys, as well as guiding procedures, imaging breasts and blood vessels, and assessing fetal development in pregnancies. The procedure works by a transducer sending sound waves into the body and receiving echoes to create images based on the return signal.
MRI uses magnetic fields and radio waves to produce detailed images of organs and tissues in the body. It is commonly used to evaluate the chest, abdomen, pelvis, and breasts to diagnose conditions like tumors, heart problems, and liver or kidney diseases. During an MRI exam, the patient lies still inside the machine while images are taken. MRI has benefits over other tests as it does not use radiation and can clearly depict soft tissues, though movement can cause blurred images and certain implants are not compatible.
CT scans provide detailed cross-sectional images of the body by combining x-rays with computer technology. CT scans are useful for diagnosing many medical conditions by allowing physicians to examine tissues and organs. While CT scans provide valuable medical information with minimal risks, they do involve exposure to radiation, so the benefits must be weighed against the risks for each individual patient's circumstance.
This document provides an overview of a chest x-ray procedure, including:
- What a chest x-ray is and its common uses such as evaluating the lungs, heart, and chest for conditions like pneumonia or lung cancer.
- How the procedure is performed, including positioning the patient and obtaining frontal and lateral x-ray images.
- How chest x-rays work by exposing the chest to low-dose radiation and producing images based on tissue density.
- The benefits of chest x-rays in providing fast, low-risk imaging to diagnose chest conditions, weighed against the small radiation exposure risk.
- Key anatomy seen on chest x-rays like the lungs, heart borders, f
How to Download & Install Module From the Odoo App Store in Odoo 17Celine George
Custom modules offer the flexibility to extend Odoo's capabilities, address unique requirements, and optimize workflows to align seamlessly with your organization's processes. By leveraging custom modules, businesses can unlock greater efficiency, productivity, and innovation, empowering them to stay competitive in today's dynamic market landscape. In this tutorial, we'll guide you step by step on how to easily download and install modules from the Odoo App Store.
Andreas Schleicher presents PISA 2022 Volume III - Creative Thinking - 18 Jun...EduSkills OECD
Andreas Schleicher, Director of Education and Skills at the OECD presents at the launch of PISA 2022 Volume III - Creative Minds, Creative Schools on 18 June 2024.
Temple of Asclepius in Thrace. Excavation resultsKrassimira Luka
The temple and the sanctuary around were dedicated to Asklepios Zmidrenus. This name has been known since 1875 when an inscription dedicated to him was discovered in Rome. The inscription is dated in 227 AD and was left by soldiers originating from the city of Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv).
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
إضغ بين إيديكم من أقوى الملازم التي صممتها
ملزمة تشريح الجهاز الهيكلي (نظري 3)
💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀
تتميز هذهِ الملزمة بعِدة مُميزات :
1- مُترجمة ترجمة تُناسب جميع المستويات
2- تحتوي على 78 رسم توضيحي لكل كلمة موجودة بالملزمة (لكل كلمة !!!!)
#فهم_ماكو_درخ
3- دقة الكتابة والصور عالية جداً جداً جداً
4- هُنالك بعض المعلومات تم توضيحها بشكل تفصيلي جداً (تُعتبر لدى الطالب أو الطالبة بإنها معلومات مُبهمة ومع ذلك تم توضيح هذهِ المعلومات المُبهمة بشكل تفصيلي جداً
5- الملزمة تشرح نفسها ب نفسها بس تكلك تعال اقراني
6- تحتوي الملزمة في اول سلايد على خارطة تتضمن جميع تفرُعات معلومات الجهاز الهيكلي المذكورة في هذهِ الملزمة
واخيراً هذهِ الملزمة حلالٌ عليكم وإتمنى منكم إن تدعولي بالخير والصحة والعافية فقط
كل التوفيق زملائي وزميلاتي ، زميلكم محمد الذهبي 💊💊
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Elevate Your Nonprofit's Online Presence_ A Guide to Effective SEO Strategies...TechSoup
Whether you're new to SEO or looking to refine your existing strategies, this webinar will provide you with actionable insights and practical tips to elevate your nonprofit's online presence.
CapTechTalks Webinar Slides June 2024 Donovan Wright.pptxCapitolTechU
Slides from a Capitol Technology University webinar held June 20, 2024. The webinar featured Dr. Donovan Wright, presenting on the Department of Defense Digital Transformation.
CapTechTalks Webinar Slides June 2024 Donovan Wright.pptx
academicperformanceindicatorsapi-190123081235.pdf
1. ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS (API)
Dr. K. Vetrivel,
Assistant Professor,
Department of Economics,
Bharathidasan University,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 024.
Email: vetrivelk@bdu.ac.in
&
Founder, Publisher & Chief Editor,
Global Development Review (GDR) Journal,
(Multidisciplinary Journal)
Gundur, Tiruchirappalli – 620 007
Email: globaldevelopmentreview@gmail.com
2. ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (API) FOR CAREER ADVANCEMENT
SCHEME (CAS) PROMOTIONS FOR ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR AND PROFESSOR IN
UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES
3. • Category-I : Teaching, Learning and
Evaluation Related Activities
• Category-II : Professional Development, Co-
Curricular and Extension Activities
• Category-III : Research and Academic
Contributions
4. Category-I : Teaching, Learning and Evaluation
Related Activities
(For Assistant Professors (Stage-I to II, Stage-II to III & Stage-III to Associate Professor
Promotions & Associate Professor to Professor Promotions)
5. Category-I : Teaching, Learning and Evaluation Related Activities
I A Direct Teaching
Activities to be considered in this sub-category
Lectures (L), Tutorials (T), Practicals (P), Project Supervision (PS), Field Work (FW) and
Other Relevant Activities (ORA).
Maximum 16/14/14 hours per week for Assistant Professors/Associate
Professors/Professors
5
Academic
year
Semester Actual hours spent Total hours
spent
L T P PS FW ORA
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
6. 6
Table -2: API Calculation
*
#
(B) = 7.5 for Assistant Professor; 7.75 for Associate Professor and Professor.
Maximum permitted score: Assistant Professor – 70; Associate Professor – 60; Professor – 60.
Academic
year
Semester Actual hours spent on
Direct Teaching
L+T+P+PS+FW+ORA
(From Table – 1)
Actual hours
spent per
academic year
(A)
Score
=
*
(A)/(B)
Score
#
Earned
in
semester
in the year
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
No. of academic
years =
Total =
7. 7
Table -2: API Calculation
*
#
(B) = 7.5 for Assistant Professor; 7.75 for Associate Professor and Professor.
Maximum permitted score: Assistant Professor – 70; Associate Professor – 60;
Professor – 60.
Academic
year
Semester Actual hours spent on
Direct Teaching
L+T+P+PS+FW+ORA
(From Table – 1)
Actual hours
spent per
academic
year
(A)
Score
=
*
(A)/(B)
Score
#
Earned
in
semester
in the
year
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
No. of
academic
years =
Total =
9. 9
I B Examination Duties (Question paper setting (QPS), invigilation (I), evaluation of answer scripts (EAS)) as
per allotment
#
Maximum permitted score: Assistant Professor – 20; Associate Professor – 20;
Professor – 10.
Academic
year
Semester Actual hours spent Actual
hours spent
per
academic
year
(A)
Score
=
(A)/10
Score
#
Earned
in semester in the
year
QPS I EAS
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
No. of academic years = Total =
10. 10
I C Innovative Teaching (Learning methodologies, updating of subject contents / courses, mentoring
etc.)
# Maximum permitted score: Assistant Professor – 10; Associate Professor – 15;
Professor – 20.
Academic
year
Semester Actual hours spent Actual hours
spent per
academic year
(A)
Score
= (A)/10
Score
#
Earned
in
semester
in the
year
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Odd
Even
Number of academic
years =
Total =
12. 12
Summary of Category I
#
Minimum score required: 80 for Assistant Professor Stage 1 to Stage 2;
80 for Assistant Professor Stage 2 to Stage 3;
75 for Assistant Professor Stage 3 to Associate Professor / equivalent cadre Stage 4;
70 for Associate Professor Stage 4 to Professor/equivalent cadre Stage 5;
70 for Professor Stage 5 to Professor Stage 6.
Assessment
period Score earned per academic year in
#
Total Score
I A I B I C
14. 14
Category-II : Professional Development, Co-Curricular and Extension Activities
II A) Student related co-curricular, extension and field based activities List of activities
to be considered in this sub-category
(Discipline related co-curricular activities (e.g. Remedial Classes (RC), Career
Counseling (CC), Study Visit (SV) and Student Seminar (SS), Other Events (OE))
Other co-curricular activities (Cultural (CA), Sports (SA), NSS, NCC, Other
Events (OE))
Extension and dissemination activities (Public/popular/lectures/talks/seminars (EDA),
Other Events (OE))
(ii)
(iii)
Table -1: Total Hours
Academic
year
Actual hours spent for Total
hours
spent
RC CC SV SS CA SA NSS NCC EDA OE
15. Table -2: API Calculation Assessment Period :
Academic year Total hours
spent (from
the above
table-1) (A)
Actual score
= A/10
Score earned in each
academic year (Max. 15
for each academic year)
Total Score Earned in the Assessment Period
=
17. 17
II B) Contribution to corporate life and management of the department and institution through participation
in academic and administrative committees and responsibilities
List of activities to be considered in this sub-category
(i)Administrative responsibility (including as Dean, Principal (Prin.),
Chairperson (Chair), Convener (Conv.), Teacher-in-charge (TiC), similar other
duties (OD) that require regular office hours for its discharge)
(ii)Participation in Board of Studies (BoS), Academic and Administrative
Committees (AAC)
Table -1: Total Hours
Academic year Actual hours spent for Total
hours
spent
Dean Prin. Chair Conv. TiC BoS AAC OD
18. 18
Table -2: API Calculation Assessment Period :
Academic
year
Total hours spent
(from the above
table-1) (A)
Actual
score
= A/10
Score earned in each
academic year (Max. 15
for each academic year)
Total Score Earned in the Assessment Period
=
20. 20
II C) Professional Development Activities
List of activities to be considered in this sub-category
(i)Participation in Seminars/Conferences/Workshops (SCW)
(ii)Participation in Short Term Training Courses (STTC)
(iii)Participation in Industrial Experience (IE)
(iv)Talks and Lectures in Refresher and Faculty Development Courses (only) (Talks)
(v)Dissemination and General Articles (DGA)
(vi)Any other related contributions (ORC)
For Lectures and Papers presented in Seminars and Conferences see Category III E
Table -1: Total Hours
Academic year Actual hours spent for Total hours
spent
SCW STTC IE Talks DGA ORC
21. 21
Table -2: API Calculation Assessment Period :
Summary of Category II
#
Minimum score required: 50 for Assistant Professor Stage 1 to Stage 2;
50 for Assistant Professor Stage 2 to Stage 3;
50 for Assistant Professor Stage 3 to Associate Professor / equivalent cadre Stage 4;
50 for Associate Professor Stage 4 to Professor/equivalent cadre Stage 5;
100 for Professor Stage 5 to Professor Stage 6.
Academic year Total hours spent
(from the above
table -1) (A)
Actual score
= A/10
Score earned in each
academic year (Max. 15
for each academic year)
Total Score Earned in the Assessment Period =
Assessment Period Score earned in
Total Scor #
II A II B II C
23. 23
Category-III : Research and Academic Contributions
III A Research Papers Publication
Papers published in Refereed Journals (RJ) and other Reputed Journals (ORJ) as
notified by the UGC
Score to a Refereed Journal Paper
Score to an Other Reputed Journal Paper = 10
Points for a paper with the impact factor (IF)
IF < 1 1 ≤ IF < 2 2 ≤ IF < 5 5 ≤ IF < 10 IF ≥ 10
5 10 15 20 25
24. Score to the author:
Single author Publication
Single Your score is 100% of the points of the paper.
For a Joint Publication with two authors
JP70 - You are the first author and also the principal author / corresponding
author / supervisor / mentor then your score is 70% of the points of the paper.
JP50 - You are the first author but not the principal author / corresponding author /
supervisor / mentor OR You are the second author but also the principal
author / corresponding author / supervisor / mentor then your score is 50% of
the points of the paper.
JP30 - You are the second author but not the principal author / corresponding
author / supervisor / mentor then your score is 30% of the points of the paper.
25. • For a Joint Publication with more than two authors
•
JP70 You are the first author and also the principal author / corresponding
author / supervisor / mentor then your score is 70% of the points of the paper.
JP35 You are the first author but not the principal author / corresponding author /
supervisor / mentor then your score is 35% of the points of the paper.
JP35 You are not the first author but the principal author / corresponding author /
supervisor / mentor then your score is 35% of the points of the paper.
JP30/N You are neither the first author nor the principal author / corresponding author /
supervisor / mentor. If there are N such authors (including you) then your
score is (30/N)% of the points of the paper.
26. 26
Attach a list of publications. For each publication give names of all authors, title of
the paper, name of the journal, volume number, pages, month and year of publication.
Assessment Period :
S. No. of
the
publication
in the
attached
list
RJ
OR
ORJ
Impact
factor (if
the
journal is
RJ)
Score
to the paper
Nature of
authorship (Single
/ JP30 /
JP35 / JP50 /
JP70 /
JP30/N (Give the
value of N) )
Score
to the author
Total =
28. III B Research Publications (Books
and Chapters in Books)
Score to the author:
Single Author Book/Chapter
Your score is 100% of the points of the book/chapter in the book.
For a Book/Chapter in a Book with two authors
JP70 You are the first author and also the principal author / corresponding
author / Supervisor / mentor then your score is 70% of the points of the book /
chapter.
JP50 You are the first author but not the principal author / corresponding author /
Supervisor / mentor OR You are the second author but also the principal author /
corresponding author / supervisor / mentor then your score is 50% of the points of the paper.
JP30 You are the second author but not the principal author / corresponding
author / Supervisor / mentor then your score is 30% of the points of the book /
chapter.
29. For a Book/Chapter in a Book with
more than two authors
•
JP70 You are the first author and also the principal author / corresponding author /
supervisor / mentor then your score is 70% of the points of the book / chapter.
JP35 You are the first author but not the principal author / corresponding author /
supervisor / mentor then your score is 35% of the points of book / chapter.
JP35 You are not the first author but the principal author / corresponding author /
supervisor / mentor then your score is 35% of the points of the book / chapter.
JP30/N You are not the first author and also not the principal author / corresponding
author / supervisor / mentor. If there are N such authors (including you) then
your score is (30/N)% of the points of the book/chapter.
30. 30
III B(i) Text or Reference Books published by international publishers with
ISBN/ISSN numbers as approved by the University and posted on the
website and intimated to UGC.
Score for a Book = 30 Assessment Period:
Details of the Book ISBN / Nature of authorship Score Earned
(Title/Authors/ Publisher/ ISSN (Single / JP30 / JP35 /
Month and year of
publication)
number JP50 / JP70/ JP30/N
(Give the value of N) )
Total =
31. 31
III B(ii) Subject Books published by national level publishers with ISBN / ISSN
number or State / Central Government Publications as approved by the
University and posted on the website and intimated to UGC.
Score for a Book = 20 Assessment Period:
Details of the Book ISBN / Nature of authorship Score Earned
(Title/Authors/ Publisher/ ISSN (Single / JP30 / JP35 /
Month and year of publication) number JP50 / JP70/ JP30/N
(Give the value of N) )
Total =
33. 33
III B(iii) Subject Books published by other local publishers with ISBN/ISSN number as
approved by the University and posted on the website and intimated to UGC.
Score for a Book = 15
Assessment Period:
Details of the Book ISBN / Nature of authorship Score Earned
(Title/Authors/ Publisher/ ISSN (Single / JP30 / JP35 /
Month and year of
publication)
number JP50 / JP70/ JP30/N
(Give the value of N) )
Total =
34. 34
III B(iv) Chapters in Books published by International /National level publishers with
ISBN / ISSN number as approved by the University and posted on the website
and intimated to UGC.
Score : International Publ. = 10 per chapter; National Publ. = 5 per chapter
Assessment Period :
Details of the Book and the Chapter
(Title/Authors/ Publisher/Month and year
of publication)
ISBN / ISSN
number and
International/
National Publisher
Nature of
authorship (Single
/ JP30 / JP35 /
JP50 / JP70 /
JP30/N
(Give the value of
N) )
Score
Earned
Total =
37. 37
III C Research Projects
III C(i) Sponsored Projects
Score for a Major/Minor Project
Score for an Investigator
Project with Single Investigator : 100%
Project with more than one Investigator : 70% for PI and equal sharing of 30%
by the remaining Investigators
Faculty of Sciences /
Engineering Faculties of Languages / Humanities / Arts
/ Social Sciences / Library / Physical
Education / Management
Score for the
Project
Major project with grant
above Rs. 30 lakhs
Major project with grant above Rs. 5 lakhs
20
Major project with grant
above Rs. 5 lakhs up to Rs. 30
lakhs
Major project with grant above Rs. 3 lakh
upto 5 lakhs
15
Minor project with grant
above Rs. 1 lakh up to
Rs. 5 lakhs
Minor project with grant above Rs. 1 lakh up
to Rs. 3 lakhs
10
38. 38
Assessment Period :
Details of the project (Title /
Funding Agency / Total
budget / Names of PI & all
Co-PIs)
Duration
(starting month
and year – Ending
month and year)
Major /
Minor
Status
(PI/
Co-PI)
Score
Total =
39. 39
III C(ii) Consultancy Projects
Score for a Project
Score for an Investigator
Project with Single Investigator : 100%
Project with more than one Investigator : 70% for PI and equal sharing of 30% by the
remaining Investigators
Assessment Period :
Minimum amount to
be mobilized
Score
Faculty of Sciences/Engineering Rs. 10 lakhs
10 for every
Rs. 10 lakhs
Faculties of Languages / Humanities
/ Arts / Social Sciences / Library /
Physical Education / Management
Rs. 2 lakhs
10 for every
Rs. 2 lakhs
Details of the project (Title /
Funding Agency / Names of PI &
all Co-PIs)
Duration
(starting month
and year – Ending
month and year)
Amount
mobilized
(in lakhs)
Score
Total =
40. 40
III C(iii) Projects Outcome / Outputs
Score for a Project
Score for an Owner of the Outcome / Output
Single Ownership : 100%
More than one Ownership : 70% for First Owner and equal sharing of 30%
by the remaining Owners
Assessment Period :
Nature of outcome Score
Faculty of
Sciences/Engineering Patent / Technology transfer /
Product / Process
30 for international
level
20 for national level
Faculties of Languages /
Humanities / Arts / Social
Sciences / Library / Physical
Education / Management
Major Policy document
prepared for international
bodies like WHO / UNO /
UNESCO / UNICEF etc.
Central / State Govt. / Local
Bodies
30 for major policy
document of
international bodies
20 for central govt.
10 for state govt.
5 for local bodies
Name and date
of the outcome
/output
Names of all the
owners
Status
(International/
National / State
/ Local)
Score to
the
outcome
/
output
Score
to the
faculty
Total =
42. 42
III D Research Guidance
III D(i) M.Phil. degree awarded only
Score : 5 per candidate
Assessment Period :
S.No. Name of the candidate Date of viva-
voce exam.
Number of
candidates
Score
43. 43
III D(ii) Ph.D. degree awarded / thesis submitted
There should not be duplication in claim for scores for thesis submitted and awarded.
Points to a Ph.D thesis: Degree awarded = 15; thesis submitted = 10 Score to the
Guide for a Ph.D. thesis supervision without co-guide = 100% For a joint
supervision: Score to the Guide = 70%;
Score to the Co-Guide = 30%
Summary of Category III D
Name of the candidate
Thesis
submitted /
Degree
awarded
Date of
thesis
submitted /
viva-voce
exam.
Guidance
(Single /
Joint)
Status of the
faculty
(Guide /
Co-guide)
Score to
the
faculty
Total =
Assessment period Score
III D(i) III D(ii) Total
44. 44
III E Fellowships, Awards and Invited Lectures Delivered in Conferences / Seminar
III E(i) Fellowships and Awards (F/A)
Score for a Fellowship/Award
Assessment Period :
Faculty of
Sciences/Engineering
Faculties of Languages /
Humanities / Arts / Social
Sciences / Library / Physical
Education / Management
Score
Fellowship Award
International F/A from
academic bodies
International F/A from
academic bodies/association
15 15
National F/A from
academic bodies
National F/A from academic
bodies/association
10 10
State/Univ. level Award
(only) from acad. bodies
State/Univ. level Award (only)
from acad. bodies/association
-- 5
Name of the
Fellowship/Award
Date of
award
Name of the
Body/Association
Level (Intl./
Natl. /State /
Univ.)
Score
Total =
45. 45
III E(ii) Invited Lectures / Papers Presented by the Faculty
Score for a Lecture / Paper
Permitted Maximum Score
Assessment Period :
From Stage to Stage (Fillup the Stages)
Activity Score
International Level National Level State/University Level
Lecture 7 5 3
Paper 5 3 2
Activity Details of activity (Name of the
Programme, Place, Duration and Date of
Presentation)
Level (Intl./
Natl. /State /
Univ
Score
Total =
Earned Score (See the above table for the Maximum permitted score)
Assistant Professor Assistant Professor
(Stage 3) to Associate
Professor (Stage 4)
Associate Professor
(Stage 4)
to
Professor (Stage 5)
Professor (Stage
5) to Professor
(Stage 6)
Stage 1 to
Stage 2
Stage 2 to
Stage 3
4 10 15 20 80
49. 49
III F Development of e-Learning Delivery Process/Material Score
for a module = 10
Score for a faculty:
Single author module = 10
Joint authors module : 7 for the first author;
Equally sharing of 3 by other authors.
Assessment Period :
#
S.No.
Title of the developed e-learning delivery process/material,
name of all authors and date of publication/presentation
Score
Total =
50. 50
Score Earned in Category III
#
Minimum score required:
20 for Assistant Professor Stage 1 to Stage 2;
50 for Assistant Professor Stage 2 to Stage 3;
75 for Assistant Professor Stage 3 to Associate Professor / equivalent cadre Stage 4;
100 for Associate Professor Stage 4 to Professor/equivalent cadre Stage 5;
400 for Professor Stage 5 to Professor Stage 6.
Assessment
period
Score
III A III B III C III D III E III F
#
Total
52. 52
Score Earned in Categories (II+III)#
=
#
Minimum score required#
:
90 for Assistant Professor Stage 1 to Stage 2;
120 for Assistant Professor Stage 2 to Stage 3;
150 for Assistant Professor Stage 3 to Associate Professor / equivalent cadre Stage 4;
180 for Associate Professor Stage 4 to Professor/equivalent cadre Stage 5;
600 for Professor Stage 5 to Professor Stage 6.