This document presents a methodology for assessing attainment of program outcomes (POs) for an electronics engineering diploma program. Course outcomes (COs) are defined and mapped to POs for individual courses. Student performance on exams, assignments, and surveys are used to directly assess CO attainment levels. CO attainment levels are then aggregated to determine average attainment levels for each PO. This provides an overall assessment of the degree to which the program outcomes are being achieved.

1. http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 50 editor@iaeme.com
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology
(IJARET)
Volume 6, Issue 11, Nov 2015, pp. 50-58, Article ID: IJARET_06_11_005
Available online at
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/issues.asp?JType=IJARET&VType=6&IType=11
ISSN Print: 0976-6480 and ISSN Online: 0976-6499
© IAEME Publication
___________________________________________________________________________
AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON ASSESSMENT OF
PO ATTAINMENT FOR A DIPLOMA
PROGRAM
Surendar Rawat
Instrumentation Department, V. E. S. Polytechnic, Sindhi Society,
Chembur, Mumbai, India
Shruti Karkare
Electronics and Communication Technology Department, V. E. S. Polytechnic,
Sindhi Society, Chembur, Mumbai, India
ABSTRACT
The Outcome based Education (OBE) has been one of the major concern
of most academic institution in India, especially among the engineering
institution as the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) has made it
compulsory towards program accreditation.
This paper aims to provide an evaluation method for the attainment of
Program Outcomes for Engineering Diploma Program as defined by National
Board of Accreditation (NBA). NBA requires specific evaluation techniques
and assessment methods for measuring the attainment of Course Outcomes
and Program Outcomes. Accordingly this paper describes the assessment
method used to measure the PO via direct assessment of the Course Outcomes
and indirect methods through surveys. Course Outcomes for each course were
developed and surveys were conducted throughout the semesters to assess the
level of awareness and understanding of OBE.
Key words: Assessment, Attainment, CO, Electronics Engineering, OBE, PO,
NBA.
Cite this Article: Surendar Rawat and Shruti Karkare. An Empirical Study on
Assessment of Po Attainment for A Diploma Program. International Journal
of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 6(11), 2015, pp. 50-58.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/issues.asp?JType=IJARET&VType=6&IType=11
1. INTRODUCTION [1]
Outcome Based Education (OBE) has been one of the most important tools in
engineering education in recent years and for the last few years; Indian education
system has already adopted Outcome Based Education (OBE), through National

2. An Empirical Study on Assessment of Po Attainment For A Diploma Program
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 51 editor@iaeme.com
Board of Accreditation (NBA) [3]. A formal definition of OBE can be stated as "an
outcome is visible and observable demonstration of knowledge, competence and
orientation at the end of a learning experience." (Spady, 1994) [4]. Thus for OBE
implementation, initially it is necessary that the desired or defined outcomes are
determined and then according to defined outcomes, programme curriculum, teaching
and learning methodology and supporting facilities are designed. During the course of
the programme, various measurement methods are used to measure the attainment of
outcomes.
Program outcomes recognize the knowledge, skills, abilities, etc., that the students
have and will be able to demonstrate upon completion of the program. The outcomes
need to be specific and measurable. The assessment of PO attainment largely depends
on the student’s performance and students perceptions in various assessment
processes which indicate students learning achievements. Therefore, it is necessary
and important to carry out a proper attainment method in order to measure student
learning achievement and to predict the student’s performance in future.
The purpose of this paper is to assess the PO attainment for an Electronics
Engineering Program based on direct and indirect assessment method as laid down by
NBA.
2. OBE AND NBA [1], [3]
Outcome based education is an approach to education in which decisions about the
curriculum are driven by the exit learning outcomes that the students should display at
the end of the course. The National Board of Accreditation (NBA) has adopted OBE
approach and has laid out guidelines for institutions to pursue excellence in order to
get accreditation. Those guidelines are followed to define the program outcomes and
the course outcomes.
Program Outcomes: Program Outcomes are narrower statements that describe what
students are expected to know and be able to do upon the graduation. These relate to
the skills, knowledge, and behaviour that students acquire in their enrolment through
the program.
Course Outcomes: Course Outcomes are narrower statements that describe what
students are expected to know, and be able to do at the end of each course. These
relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviour that students acquire in their enrolment
through the course.
Assessment: Assessment is one or more processes, carried out by the institution, that
identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the achievement of programme
educational objectives and programme outcomes.
Attainment: Attainment is the action or fact of achieving a standard result towards
accomplishment of desired goals. Primarily attainment is the standard of academic
attainment as observed by test or examination result.
3. METHODOLOGY [1], [2], [3]
PO attainment can be done through direct attainment (student performance) method
by taking average of all CO’s that corresponds to respective PO’s and through indirect
attainment methods based on the student exit surveys, employer surveys, etc.
To measure the attainment of POs, the COs are mapped to POs and this is done in
such a way that the attainment of PO is derived through attainment of CO and
Surveys.

3. Surendar Rawat and Shruti Karkare
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 52 editor@iaeme.com
In this paper as an example we have considered Applied Physics course which is
one of the course in 2nd
Semester of the program.
The COs are abbreviated as C101, C102, C103, and C104 for English, Basic
Mathematics, Basic Chemistry and Basic Physics respectively for 1st
semester
courses. Similarly C201, C202, C203, C204… for 2nd
semester courses and so on for
higher semester.
Course Outcomes for Applied Physics (APH) are defined and analyzed by module
coordinator and they are as follows:
C204.1: Apply laws and principles of electrical circuits.
C204.2: Classify solids on the basis of band theory and describe the behaviour of pn
junction diode in forward and reverse bias.
C204.3: Describe the principles, characteristics and applications of LASER,
photoelectric effect, X-rays and nanoparticles.
C204.4: Verify principles/laws by selecting or using proper measuring instruments
interpret results and draw conclusions.
Program Outcomes are related to Graduate Attributes which are laid down by NBA.
POs are defined by Program Coordinator along with HOD and they are as follows:
PO1: Apply fundamental knowledge of Mathematics, Science and Electronics
principles in solving basic electronic engineering problems.
PO2: Perform experiments, interpret observations and provide valid conclusion and
results to electronics engineering problems.
PO3: Communicate effectively in oral and written manner through presentations and
reports.
PO4: Work efficiently as an individual and in multidisciplinary and multi-cultural
teams in the area of electronics engineering.
PO5: Identify and measure, test, troubleshoot and rectify the faults in Electronic
equipment /circuit section, using modern engineering tools.
PO6: Be aware of social, cultural and environmental duties as an electronics engineer.
CO-PO matrix for Applied Physics along with other courses of 2nd
semester is
shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1 SAMPLE CO-PO MATRIX
Second Semester
Course Code CO’s
CO-PO Matrix
PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6
ACH
C201.1 3 2 -- 1 -- --
C201.2 3 -- -- 1 2 1
C201.3 3 2 -- 1 2 1
C201.4 3 -- -- 1 -- 1
C201.5 3 -- -- 1 -- 1
APH
C202.1 3 -- -- -- -- --
C202.2 3 -- -- -- -- --
C202.3 3 -- -- -- -- --
C202.4 -- 3 -- -- 1 --
EEX
C203.1 3 2 -- -- 2 --
C203.2 3 2 -- -- 2 --
C203.3 3 2 -- -- 2 --
C203.4 3 3 -- -- 3 --

4. An Empirical Study on Assessment of Po Attainment For A Diploma Program
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 53 editor@iaeme.com
Second Semester
Course Code CO’s
CO-PO Matrix
PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6
CMS
C204.1 -- -- 3 -- -- 1
C204.2 -- -- 3 -- -- 1
C204.3 -- -- 3 -- -- 1
C204.4 -- -- 3 -- -- 1
DLS
C205.1 -- 3 -- -- -- 3
C205.2 -- -- 2 3 2 --
C205.3 -- -- -- 3 -- --
EEW
C206.1 3 3 -- 2 3 3
C206.2 3 3 -- 2 3 3
C206.3 3 3 -- 2 3 3
C206.4 3 3 -- 2 3 3
EMS
C207.1 3 2 -- -- 2 1
C207.2 3 2 -- -- 2 1
C207.3 3 2 -- -- -- 1
The CO-PO mapping has been done with correlation levels 1, 2, 3 and “--“ for no
correlation as defined below:
1. Slightly (Low)
2. Moderately (Medium)
3. Substantially (High)
Hence all six CO-PO matrices are developed, one per semester from 1st
to 6th
semester.
A. Course Outcome Assessment
The CO assessment tools used to measure the attainment levels may be in terms of
student’s performance in internal assessments such as tutorials, assignments,
laboratory tests, project evaluation, project presentations, oral examinations, etc. and
student’s performance in Board examination.
The CO% from assessment methods as shown in Table 2, is designed accordingly
by module coordinator considering the weightage distribution of marks allotted in
teaching scheme for the course and the percentage is assigned for each specified CO.
TABLE 2 CO% FROM ASSESSMENT METHODS
Direct Assessment Method
Course Outcomes (CO)
C202.1 C202.2 C202.3 C202.4 Total
Final Theory Exam (FTE) 32% 20% 48% -- 100%
Final Practical Exam (FPE) 30% 10% 20% 40% 100%
Test (T) 45% 10% 45% -- 100%
Assignment (A) 30% 20% 30% 20% 100%
Thus the CO assessment needs to be calculated as per the direct assessment
method. The overall percentage distribution of marks for direct assessment methods
as per examination scheme is shown in Table 3, assuming 75% weightage to Board
examination (FTE and FPE) and 25% weightage to Internal Assessment (T and A).
This measurement method is further used to calculate final CO attainment.

5. Surendar Rawat and Shruti Karkare
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 54 editor@iaeme.com
TABLE 3 OVERALL % DISTRIBUTION OF MARKS
Direct Assessment
Board Examination Internal Assessments
Total
FTE FPE T A
Total marks as per Exam Scheme 50 25 12.5* 12.5* 100
Overall %
50% 25% 12.50% 12.50%
100%
75% 25%
* For our convenience marks are allotted equally to consider 25% weightage of Internal Assessment
Apart from the CO assessment methods, the overall percentage distribution for
CO’s is to be considered for calculation of assessment of CO’s.
B. Course Outcome Attainment
Based on the % CO distribution of marks as per teaching and examination scheme of
Applied Physics course, the CO attainment can be obtained. For example the final
C202.1 attainment using Table 2 and Table 3 is calculated as
12.5%)A(30%+12.5%)T(45%+25%)FPE(30%+50%)FTE(32%=C202.1 
Similarly C202.2, C202.3 and C202.4 can be calculated.
The normalized formula [1] that can be used for calculation of CO attainment for
Board examination is given below:
0.25)(0.4FPE=C202.4
0.25)(0.2FPE+0.5)(0.48FTE=C202.3
0.25)(0.10FPE+0.5)(0.20FTE=C202.2
0.25)(0.3FPE+0.5)(0.32FTE=C202.1




Similarly the normalized formula [1] that can be used for calculation of CO
attainment for internal assessment is given below:
0.125)(0.2A=C202.4
0.125)(0.3A+0.125)(0.45T=C202.3
0.125)(0.2A+0.125)(0.10T=C202.2
0.125)(0.3A+0.125)(0.45T=C202.1




where,
FTE is the student’s Final Theory Exam mark
FPE is the student’s Final Practical Exam mark
T is the student’s Class Test mark
A is the student’s Final Assignment mark.
The % CO attainment for Applied Physics course is calculated from the above
normalized formula by using average marks scored by the entire class in FTE, FPE, T
and A as shown in Table 4.

6. An Empirical Study on Assessment of Po Attainment For A Diploma Program
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 55 editor@iaeme.com
TABLE 4 %CO ATTAINTMENT WITH ATTAINMENT LEVEL
Attainment Method C202.1 C202.2 C202.3 C202.4
Board Examination 54.11 43.34 46.43 61
Internal Assessment 18.03 14.44 15.47 20.33
%CO Attainment† 72.14 57.78 61.9 81.33
Attainment level 2 0 1 3
Mapped POs PO1 PO1 PO1 PO2, PO5
† It is calculated considering 75% of Board level exam (FTE and FPE) and 25% of
Internal level assessment (T and A).
To measure the attainment level of each Course Outcome, it is compared with
40% as the minimum marks for completion of course is 40. The attainment level
considered in the Table 4 is as below:
Attainment Level 1: 60% students scoring more than 40 marks in direct assessment.
Attainment Level 2: 70% students scoring more than 40 marks in direct assessment.
Attainment Level 3: 80% students scoring more than 40 marks in direct assessment.
The CO-PO matrix of Applied Physics is developed from the Table 4. The
average attainment of all the POs for the selected course, where the average of: PO1 =
1, PO2 = 3 and PO5 = 3 as shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5 AVERAGE ATTAINMENT LEVEL CO-PO METRIX FOR APPLIED PHYSICS
CO
CO-PO MATRIX
PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6
C202.1 2 -- -- -- -- --
C202.2 0 -- -- -- -- --
C202.3 1 -- -- -- -- --
C202.4 -- 3 -- -- 3 --
C202 1 3 -- -- 3 --
Similarly the average attainment levels for all the courses from 1st to 6th semester
are calculated. Table 6 shows the average attainment for all the courses of 2nd
semester.
TABLE 6 CO-PO MATRIX FOR 2ND
SEMESTER
Course
Code
CO
CO-PO MATRIX
PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6
ACH C201 0.8 1 1 0.8 1 0.75
APH C202 1 3 -- -- 3 --
EEX C203 1.5 1.5 -- 2 1.5 --
CMS C204 -- -- 2 2 -- 2
DLS C205 -- 3 3 3 3 3
EEW C206 3 3 -- 3 3 3
EMS C207 0 0 -- -- 0 0
Average 1.26 1.92 2.00 2.16 1.92 1.75

7. Surendar Rawat and Shruti Karkare
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 56 editor@iaeme.com
C. Program Outcome Attainment
Program Outcome attainment is done through direct attainment method and indirect
attainment method. Both direct and indirect assessment tools are used for evaluation
of attainment of POs. For the overall attainment, 80% and 20% weightage are given to
direct and indirect assessment respectively.
Direct Attainment of PO
PO attainment through direct assessment is depicted in Table 7, it highlights the
average attainment of PO from 1st
to 6th
semester of Electronics Engineering Program.
TABLE 7 DIRECT ATTAINMENT OF POs
Semester
PO Attainment
PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6
First 1.99 2.10 2.01 1.86 1.13 2.61
Second 1.26 1.92 2.00 2.16 1.92 1.75
Third 1.64 1.42 2.06 2.08 1.54 2.38
Fourth 1.44 1.05 1.53 2.37 1.94 1.61
Fifth 2.73 3.00 2.71 2.85 2.60 2.65
Sixth 2.78 3.00 2.90 2.93 3.00 2.90
Average 1.97 2.08 2.20 2.37 2.02 2.32
Indirect Attainment of PO
The assessment methods used for indirect attainment of POs are:
 Course Exit Survey: The survey is taken by each student for individual subject with
reference to their course outcomes after the end of every semester.
 Program Exit Survey: The survey is taken in the last semester i.e. 6th
semester, by the
student of last year.
 Alumni Feedback: Alumni, particularly the student who has completed diploma
within the 2-3 years of current academic year, feedback is taken with reference to the
achievement of POs.
 Employers Feedback: A written feedback is taken from the industries for the
performance of students, those who has undergone vocational/summer training and
internship in the industries as well as who got the jobs in the industries.
In the feedback/survey form, responses are noted into score based on Likert scale
1 – 5.
TABLE 8 INDIRECT ATTAINMENT OF POs
Assessment Methods
PO Attainment
PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6
Course Exit Survey 3 2 2 3 3 3
Program Exit Survey 3 3 3 3 2 3
Alumni Feedback 3 2 3 3 3 3
Employer Feedback 2 3 2 3 2 2
Average 2.75 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 2.75

8. An Empirical Study on Assessment of Po Attainment For A Diploma Program
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 57 editor@iaeme.com
Table 8, enumerates the average of indirect attainment of PO for Electronics
Engineering Program, here the Students/Alumni/Employers have filled the form as
per their responses. To measure the attainment level of each Program Outcome, it is
compared with score of the Likert Scale from 1- 5. The attainment level considered in
the Table 8 is as below:
Attainment Level 1: Low – Score from 0.5 to 2.
Attainment Level 2: Medium – Score from 2 to 3.5.
Attainment Level 3: High – Score from 3.5 to 5.
4. FINDINGS [2]
Table 9 is used to tabulate the results of direct and assessments and hence to assess
the attainment of PO’s. The attainment level is calculated by considering 80% of
direct assessment plus 20% of indirect assessment.
i.e., Actual PO Attainment = (80% of DA) + (20% of IA)
TABLE 9 PO ATTAINMENT OF ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING PROGRAM
Assessment Method
Final PO Attainment
PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6
Direct Assessment (DA) 1.97 2.08 2.2 2.37 2.02 2.32
Indirect Assessment (IA) 2.75 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 2.75
Actual PO Attainment 2.13 2.16 2.26 2.50 2.12 2.41
Assumed Attainment Level 2 2 2 2 2 2
PO Attained YES YES YES YES YES YES
To measure the overall attainment of Program, it is necessary to have a target
value or assumed value which will indicate whether the PO’s has been achieved.
Hence we consider the assumed attainment level as 2 and thus all the Program
Outcomes for Electronics Engineering Program are attained.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper provides an appropriate method for calculating the attainment of program
outcomes through direct and indirect assessment methods as defined by NBA. The
direct assessment method implies that the CO attainment directly reflects the PO
attainment and the indirect assessment method implies that each individual
component in the assessment contributes to the attainment of PO. OBE has made
faculty to develop creative way of assessing student’s performance through their
regular assessment by using different assessment tools/methods.
This study can help as guidance to faculties in calculating their program outcome
attainments and monitoring the students’ performance in coming sessions as well as
improving teaching efficiency.

9. Surendar Rawat and Shruti Karkare
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 58 editor@iaeme.com
REFRENCES
[1] Surendar Rawat and Shruti Karkare, 2015. An Empirical Study on Assessment
of CO Attainment for a Diploma Course. International Journal of Electronics
and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET).Volume:6, Issue:
2, Pages: 6-12.
[2] National Board of Accreditation Draft Copy of Self-Assessment Report
(SAR) For Diploma Engineering Programs – First Time Accreditation, June
2015.
[3] National Board of Accreditation Manual for Diploma Engineering
Programmes (Tier-II), January 2013.
[4] Spady, W. (1994) Outcomes Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers,
American Association of School Administration: Arlington, Virginia.