CO PO and PSO attainment.pptx

COs-POs/PSOs Mapping and
Attainment Calculation

Presentation Outline
 Brief about COs, POs, and PSOs
 Preparing COs – POs/PSOs Mapping
 Deciding Strength of Mapping of Course –
POs/PSOs
 Calculating COs Attainment
 Calculating POs, and PSOs Attainment

COs, POs, PSOs, PEOs, VM: Development
and Attainment
© Chetan Bhatt
40-48 Courses
~6 CO/Course
240-288
COs/Prog
12 POs
2-4 PSO
3-5 PEOs
1 Vision
3-4 Mission D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
T
T
A
I
N
M
E
N
T

When to assess?
© Chetan Bhatt

Program Educational Objectives (PEOs)
 What the Graduates of the program are expected to
achieve within 3 to 4 years of completing the
program.
 Can be abstract to some extent; but must be smaller
in number and must be achievable.
 Must follow from Vision and Mission
 Must follow an established process
 Typically, the process is similar to the one for Vision
and Mission
 Process Documentation
 Records of Process Implementation
5

PEOs (2)
 Must be shared with all stake holders!
 Key elements (generally):
 Professional success
 Life-long learning, Higher Education, Research
 Ethical professional practice
 Communication skills
 Team player
 ……
 3 to 5 PEOs may be arrived at following a well-
defined and recorded process
 Measurement and closing the loop
6

Program Educational Objectives
7
Mission of
the
Department
Committee (with
representative of all
stakeholders)
Stakeholder
s (Industry,
Alumni,
Faculty,
Graduating
students)
Program Educational
Objectives (PEOs)
PEO-PO Matrix Curricular Components
– PEO Matrix
Mission-PEO
Matrix
Interacts
and
brainstorms
with
Decide &
periodically
review
Decide
Get related to
Mission through
Get related to
Curricular
Components
through
Get related to
POs through

(Sample) PEOs – UG in I & C
Graduates of BE program in I&C will be able to
1. Engage in design of systems, tools and
applications in the field of Instrumentation and
Control engineering and allied engineering
industries
2. Apply the knowledge of I & C engineering to solve
problems of social relevance, and/or pursue higher
education and research
3. Work effectively as individuals and as team
members in multidisciplinary projects
4. Engage in lifelong learning, career enhancement
and adopt to changing professional and societal
needs
8

Mission – PEO Mapping
 PEOs must be consistent with the Mission
 Example: A PEO states that the Graduates will be
successful in Research BUT Mission has no mention
of Research!
 Develop the PEO-Mission Matrix
 The strength of mapping between a PEO and an
element of Mission may be marked as Substantial,
Moderate, Slight
 Such mapping strengths must be justified
 From this perspective also, it is better to limit the
number of PEOs to a reasonably small number and
have fairly crisp Mission statements.
9

 M1, M2, and so on are elements of the Mission
 Correlation levels: 1, 2, or 3 interpreted as follows:
1- Slight; 2- Moderate; 3 – Substantial.
If there is no correlation, indicate by a “–”
 Each mapping needs to be justified
Mission – PEO Mapping (2)
10
M1 M2 M3 M4
PEO – 1 - 3
PEO – 2 2
PEO - 3 1 1 1

Mission – PEO Mapping - 3
 Example:
A PEO states that the Graduates will engage in life-
long learning; this is mapped to an element of the
Mission statement, “environment conducive for self-
directed learning”; PEO3–M4: The mapping strength
is “substantial”
Justification: The learning environment provided in
the college is designed to promote self-directed
learning by the students; this coupled with the
Program Curriculum will lead Graduates to engage
in continuous learning in their professional careers.
11

Sample course
 Control Theory (141701) is being offered in
Semester 4 in Instrumentation and Control
Engineering program
 Course structure is -
Credit Theory Practical
Th Tu Pr Total ESE CIE Total ESE PA Tota
l
4 0 2 6 70 30 100 30 20 50

Course outcomes
COx Course Outcome Cognitiv
e Level
Clas
s
(Hrs)
Lab
(Hrs)
CO1 Explain characteristics of signals, systems,
and basic structure of control system
UN 04
CO2 Prepare mathematical modelling of a given
dynamic system using transfer function,
signal flow graphs, and state space
approaches
AP 13 08
CO3 Analyze dynamic system performance in
time domain
AP 09 08
CO4 Analyze system using root locus technique AP 09 04
CO5 Analyze dynamic system performance in
frequency domain
AP 09 08
TOTAL 44 28
Course: Control Theory (141701) Credit:
4:0:2

Sample CO-PO/PSO Mappings
CO PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO1
0
PO1
1
PO1
2
P
S
O
1
P
S
O
2
P
S
O
3
P
S
O
4
CO1
CO2
CO3
CO4
CO5
4:0:2
Engineering knowledge: Apply the knowledge of mathematics, science,
engineering fundamentals, and an engineering specialization to the
solution of complex engineering problems.
Explain characteristics of signals, systems, and basic
structure of control system
Y
Problem analysis: Identify, formulate, research literature, and analyze
complex engineering problems reaching substantiated conclusions using
first principles of mathematics, natural sciences, and engineering sciences.
--
Design/development of solutions: Design solutions for complex
engineering problems and design system components or processes that
meet the specified needs with appropriate consideration for the public
health and safety, and the cultural, societal, and environmental
considerations.
-- --
Conduct investigations of complex problems: Use research-based
knowledge and research methods including design of experiments,
analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of the information to
provide valid conclusions.
Modern tool usage: Create, select, and apply appropriate techniques,
resources, and modern engineering and IT tools including prediction and
modeling to complex engineering activities with an understanding of the
limitations.
Y
The engineer and society: Apply reasoning informed by the contextual
knowledge to assess societal, health, safety, legal, and cultural issues and
the consequent responsibilities relevant to the professional engineering
practice.
--
Environment and sustainability: Understand the impact of the
professional engineering solutions in societal and environmental contexts,
and demonstrate the knowledge of, and need for sustainable development.
--
Ethics: Apply ethical principles and commit to professional ethics and
responsibilities and norms of the engineering practice..
--
Individual and team work: Function effectively as an individual, and as a
member or leader in diverse teams, and in multidisciplinary settings.
--
Communication: Communicate effectively on complex engineering
activities with the engineering community and with society at large, such
as, being able to comprehend and write effective reports and design
documentation, make effective presentations, and give and receive clear
instructions.
--
Project management and finance: Demonstrate knowledge and
understanding of the engineering and management principles and apply
these to one’s own work, as a member and leader in a team, to manage
projects and in multidisciplinary environments.
--
Life-long learning: Recognize the need for, and have the preparation and
ability to engage in independent and life-long learning in the broadest
context of technological change.
--
Specify, design, prototype and test modern automation systems that
perform measuring and control functions.
Y
Architect, partition, and select appropriate technologies for implementation
of a specified instrumentation and control system.
Y
Design, develop, test, and maintain instrumentation and control system
--
Maintain legacy automation software
systems
--

0
PO1
1
PO1
2
P
S
O
1
P
S
O
2
P
S
O
3
P
S
O
4
CO1 Y -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y Y -- --
CO2
CO3
CO4
CO5
4:0:2
Prepare mathematical modelling of a given dynamic system
using transfer function, signal flow graphs, and state space
approaches
Y
--
considerations.
-- --
limitations.
Y
practice.
--
--
--
Y
instructions.
Y
--
--
Y
Y
--
systems
--

0
PO1
1
PO1
2
P
S
O
1
P
S
O
2
P
S
O
3
P
S
O
4
CO1 Y -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y Y -- --
CO2 Y -- -- -- Y -- -- -- Y Y -- -- Y Y -- --
CO3
CO4
CO5
4:0:2
Analyze dynamic system performance in time domain
Y
Y
considerations.
-- --
limitations.
Y
practice.
--
--
--
Y
instructions.
Y
-- -- Y Y -- --
systems

0
PO1
1
PO1
2
P
S
O
1
P
S
O
2
P
S
O
3
P
S
O
4
CO1 Y -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y Y -- --
CO2 Y Y -- -- Y -- -- -- Y Y -- -- Y Y -- --
CO3 Y Y -- -- Y -- -- -- Y Y -- -- Y Y -- --
CO4
CO5
4:0:2
Analyze system using root locus technique
considerations.
limitations.
practice.
instructions.
systems
Y Y -- -- Y -- -- -- Y Y -- -- Y Y -- --

0
PO1
1
PO1
2
P
S
O
1
P
S
O
2
P
S
O
3
P
S
O
4
CO1 Y -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y Y -- --
CO2 Y Y -- -- Y -- -- -- Y Y -- -- Y Y -- --
CO3 Y Y -- -- Y -- -- -- Y Y -- -- Y Y -- --
CO4 Y Y -- -- Y -- -- -- Y Y -- -- Y Y -- --
CO5
4:0:2
Analyze dynamic system performance in frequency domain
Y
Y
considerations.
-- --
limitations.
Y
practice.
--
--
--
Y
instructions.
Y
--
--
Y
Y
--
systems
--

0
PO1
1
PO1
2
P
S
O
1
P
S
O
2
P
S
O
3
P
S
O
4
CO1 Y -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y Y -- --
CO2 Y Y -- -- Y -- -- -- Y Y -- -- Y Y -- --
CO3 Y Y -- -- Y -- -- -- Y Y -- -- Y Y -- --
CO4 Y Y -- -- Y -- -- -- Y Y -- -- Y Y -- --
CO5 Y Y -- -- Y -- -- -- Y Y -- -- Y Y -- --
4:0:2

Deciding Strength of COs-
POs/PSOs Mapping

COs-POs and PSOs
 POs and PSOs are attained through program
specific Core Courses.
 Each Course addresses a sub-set of POs and PSOs
to varying levels (strengths) (1, 2 or 3). Sometimes
we determine the POs/PSOs the courses address.
 Sometimes we may apriori determine the POs/
PSOs a Course should address, and the COs must
be written to meet the identified POs/PSOs.

Strength of CO-PO/PSO Mapping
 Attainment of a PO/PSO depends both on the
attainment levels of associated COs and the strength
to which it is mapped
 It is necessary to determine the level (mapping
strength) at which a particular PO/PSO is addressed
by the course.
 Strength of mapping is defined at three levels: Low
(1), Medium (2) and Strong (3)
 Several methods can be worked to determine the
strength of a PO/PSO, but implementing them
across a few hundred courses can become a burden

Strength of CO-PO/PSO Mapping
Sample
 A simple method is to relate the level of PO with the number of hours
devoted to the COs which address the given PO.
 If >50% of classroom sessions addressing a particular PO, it is
considered that PO is addressed at Level 3
 If 25 to 50% of classroom sessions addressing a particular PO, it
is considered that PO is addressed at Level 2
 If 5 to 25% of classroom sessions addressing a particular PO, it is
considered that PO is addressed at Level 1
 If < 5% of classroom sessions addressing a particular PO, it is
considered that PO is considered not-addressed

PSOs - Examples
Instrumentation and Control: (Stem as with POs)
 Specify, design, prototype and test modern
automation systems that perform measuring and
control functions.
 Architect, partition, and select appropriate
technologies for implementation of a specified
instrumentation and control system.
 Design, develop, test, and maintain instrumentation
and control system
 Maintain legacy automation software systems
25

COx Course Outcome POs, PSOs Clas
s
(Hrs)
Lab
(Hrs)
CO1 Explain characteristics of signals,
systems, and basic structure of control
system
PO1, PO5,
PSO1,
PSO2
04
CO2 Prepare mathematical modelling of a
given dynamic system using transfer
function, signal flow graphs, and state
space approaches
PO1, PO2,
PO5, PO9,
PO10,
PSO1,
PSO2
13 08
CO3 Analyze dynamic system performance
in time domain
- do - 09 08
CO4 Analyze system using root locus
technique
- do - 09 04
CO5 Analyze dynamic system performance - do - 09 08
Course: Control Theory Credit:
4:0:2

Course – PO/PSO Mapping Strength
44 of 72 (61%) sessions are devoted to PO1 Mapping strength is 3
72 of 72 (94%) sessions are devoted to PSO1 Mapping strength is 3
72 of 72 (94%) sessions are devoted to PSO2 Mapping strength is 3

Course-POs/PSO Mapping
 POs and PSOs are addressed through core courses, projects
etc.
 A course/project etc. meets a subset of POs and PSOs to
different strengths (1, 2 or 3)
Control Theory course addresses a subset of POs and PSOs to
varying strengths
Course PO
1
PO
2
PO
3
PO
4
PO
5
PO
6
PO
7
PO
8
PO
9
PO
10
PO
11
PO
12
PSO
1
PSO
2
PSO
3
PSO
4
141701 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 3 0 0

COs, POs, and PSOs attainment
Dr. Chetan B Bhatt

Attainment of COs of the Course
 Attainment of COs can be measured directly and
indirectly
 Direct attainment of COs can be determined from the
performances of students in all the relevant
assessment instruments.
 Indirect attainment of COs can be determined from the
course exit surveys.
 The exit survey form should permit receiving feedback
from students on individual COs.
 Computation of indirect attainment of COs may turn
out to be complex; the percentage weightage to
indirect attainment can be kept at a low percentage,
say 10%.

Direct CO attainment
 End Semester Examination (ESE) is conducted and
evaluated by the affiliating University.
 The Department will have access only to the marks
obtained by each student in the course
 As the information on performance in ESE on each
student in individual COs is not available, the
Institution/Department has to take that attainment
(percentage marks) for all COs of the course is the
same.

Direct CO attainment (contd.,)
 The proportional weightages of CIE: ESE may be
20:80, 25:75 or 30:70.
 The number of assessment instruments used for CIE
is decided by the instructor and/or Department and
sometimes by the affiliating University

Assessment Pattern
All assessment items in all
CIE assessment
instruments are to be
tagged with
 Cognitive Level (CL)
 Course Outcome (CO)
 Marks.
Sample Assessment Pattern
for all the concerned CIE
Instruments (considering
30% weightage for CIE)
indicated.
CL A1
10
T1
10
T2
10
Remember 03 03
Understan
d
05 03 03
Apply 05 04 04
Analyze - - -
Evaluate - - -
Create - - -

Assessment Pattern (contd.,)
Class average in CIE
CO
A1
10
Cl. Ave
T1
10
Cl. Ave
T2
10
Cl. Ave
CIE Class Average
CO1 0 1.6/2 0 1.6/2 = 80.00%
CO2 3.5/4 3.2/4 0 6.7/8 = 83.75%
CO3 1.4/2 3.4/4 0 4.8/6 = 80.00%
CO4 1.2/2 0 3.8/5 5.0/7 = 71.42%
CO5 1.0/2 0 3.8/5 4.8/7 = 68.57%

Setting CO Attainment Targets
 There can be several methods
Example 1:
 Same target is identified for all the COs of a course.
For example
 the target can be “the class average marks > 75
marks”

Setting CO Attainment Targets (contd.,)
Example 2
 Targets are the same for all COs and are set in terms
of performance levels of different groups of students.
 While this method classifies students into different
categories it does not provide any clues to plans for
improvement of quality of learning
Targets
(% of students
getting < 50)
(% of students
getting >50
and < 65)
(% of students
getting >65
and < 80)
(% of students
getting > 80)
10 45 35 10

Setting CO Attainment Targets (contd.,)
Example 3
 Targets are set for each CO of a course and for different groups of
students separately
 Provides considerable details which can lead to specific plans for
improvement
CO Targets
(% of
students
getting <50)
(% of
students
getting >50
and < 65)
(% of
students
getting >65
and < 80)
(% of
students
getting > 80)
CO1 10 40 40 10
CO2 20 30 40 10
CO3 20 30 40 10
CO4 10 40 40 10
CO5 20 20 50 10

Setting targets for Course Outcomes
 Targets are set for each CO of a course separately.
 It does not directly indicate the distribution of performance
among the students. It has the advantage of finding out the
difficulty of specific COs
 There are several ways setting targets for Course Outcomes
CO Target (Class Average)
CO1 80%
CO2 80%
CO3 75%
CO4 75%
CO5 75%

Computation of CO Direct Attainment in
the course Cxxx
Attainment of COi in a course –
Cxxx = (Wt. of CIE x Attainment of COi as percentage in
CIE) + (Wt. of SEE x Class Average Marks
Percentage in SEE)
CO CIE
30
Cl. Ave
SEE
75
Cl. Ave
Direct CO Attainment
0.30 CIE Cl. Ave
+0.70 SEE Cl. Ave
CO1 1.6/2 = 80.00% 76% 77.20 %
CO2 6.7/8 = 83.75% 76% 78.33 %
CO3 4.8/6 = 80.00% 76% 77.20 %
CO4 5.0/7 = 71.42% 76% 74.63 %
CO5 4.8/7 = 68.57% 76% 73.77 %

CO Attainment and Attainment Gap
 Computation of Attainment of COs in
Cxxx = 0.9 Direct CO Attainment+ 0.1 Indirect CO Attainment
CO
Direct CO
Attainment
0.30 CIE Cl. Ave
+0.70 SEE Cl. Ave
Indirect CO
Attainment
(Exit Survey)
CO
Attain-
ment
CO
Target
CO
Attainment Gap
(Attainment -
Target) %
CO1 77.20 % 78 % 77.28 % 80% -2.72 %
CO2 78.33 % 75 % 77.99 % 80% -2.01 %
CO3 77.20 % 72 % 76.68 % 75% 1.68 %
CO4 74.63 % 70 % 74.16 % 75% -0.84 %
CO5 73.77 % 70 % 73.39 % 75% -1.61 %
Note: When there are no attainment gaps or attainment gaps are negative it is
expected that the instructor will enhance the CO target next time he offers the course.

Closure of the Quality Loop
Target CO
Attainment
gap
Action proposed to
bridge the gap
Modification
of
target where
achieved
CO1 80% 2.72 % More exercise in the unit
CO3 75% -1.68 % 78 % target 80%
4:0:2

CO Attainment and POs/PSOs
 Not every COi of the course will address every
PO or PSO addressed by the course
CO POs CO Attainment %ge
CO1 PO1, PO5, PSO1, PSO2 77.28 %
CO2 PO1, PO2, PO5, PO9,
PO10, PSO1, PSO2
77.99 %
CO3 - do - 76.68 %
CO4 - do - 74.16 %
CO5 - do - 73.39 %

PO and PSO Attainment
 PO and PSO attainments are normalized to 1, that is, if a PO
is to be addressed at the level of 3 and attainments of CO
associated with that PO is 100%, then attainment of that PO is
1.
 Attainment of PO1 in Cxxx =(3/3)x Ave (0.7728 + 0.7799 +
0.7668 + 0.7416 + 0.7339) = 0.759
 Attainment of PO2 in Cxxx =(3/3)x Ave(0.7799 + 0.7668 +
0.7416 + 0.7339) = 0.755
 Attainment of PO5 in Cxxx =(3/3)x Ave (0.7728 + 0.7799 +
0.7668 + 0.7416 + 0.7339) =0.759
 Attainment of PO9 in Cxxx =(2/3) x Ave(0.7799 + 0.7668 +
0.7416 + 0.7339) = 0.5037
 Attainment of PO10 in Cxxx =(2/3) x Ave(0.7799 + 0.7668 +
0.7416 + 0.7339) = 0.5037

PO and PSO Attainment (contd.,)
 Similarly attainment of PSO
 Attainment of POS1 in Cxxx =(3/3)x Ave (0.7728 + 0.7799 +
0.7668 + 0.7416 + 0.7339) = 0.759
 Attainment of PSO2 in Cxxx =(3/3)x Ave (0.7728 + 0.7799 +
0.7668 + 0.7416 + 0.7339) = 0.759

Attainment of POs and PSOs
Course PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO
10
PO
11
PO
12
PSO
1
PSO
2
PSO
3
PSO
4
141701 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 3 0 0
Attainment 0.75
9
0.75
5
0 0 0.75
9
0 0 0 0.50
4
0.50
4
0 0 0.75
9
0.75
9
0 0
 The above data shows the attainment of POs and PSOs by
course

Attainment of POs and PSOs - 1
Course PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO
10
PO
11
PO
12
PSO
1
PSO
2
PSO
3
PSO
4
141701 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 3 0 0
Attainment 0.75
9
0.75
5
0 0 0.75
9
0 0 0 0.50
4
0.50
4
0 0 0.75
9
0.75
9
0 0

Course PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO1
0
PO1
1
PO1
2
PSO
1
PSO
2
PSO
3
PSO
4
141701 0.75
9
0.75
5
0 0 0.75
9
0 0 0 0.50
4
0.50
4
0 0 0.75
9
0.75
9
0 0
... ... ...
151001 0.26
5
0.22
6
0.64
8
0.64
8
0.64
8
0 0 0 0 0.27
1
0 0 0.65
3
0 0.45
7
0.65
3
... ... ...
170001
(Project)
0.86
5
0.82
6
0.94
8
0.74
8
0.84
8
0.67
2
0.61
3
0.21
7
0.31
2
0.77
1
0.82
1
0.84
3
0.85
3
0.78
9
0 0
 For Repeat this computation with every core course,
seminars, projects, and other academic activities relevant to
the attainment of POs / PSOs
 So we get a matrix such as the following:

Course PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO1
0
PO1
1
PO1
2
PSO
1
PSO
2
PSO
3
PSO
4
141701 0.75
9
0.75
5
0 0 0.75
9
0 0 0 0.50
4
0.50
4
0 0 0.75
9
0.75
9
0 0
... ... ...
151001 0.26
5
0.22
6
0.64
8
0.64
8
0.64
8
0 0 0 0 0.27
1
0 0 0.65
3
0 0.45
7
0.65
3
... ... ...
170001
(Project)
0.86
5
0.82
6
0.94
8
0.74
8
0.84
8
0.67
2
0.61
3
0.21
7
0.31
2
0.77
1
0.82
1
0.84
3
0.85
3
0.78
9
0 0
Average
Attainment
0.71 0.65
5
0.81
4
0.65
6
0.74
5
0.21
3
0.18
7
0.113 0.21
2
0.52
4
0.10
5
0.62
4
0.76
5
0.82
4
0.72
1
0.68
9
 For a given PO or PSO, determine the average attainment based
on all the elements contributing to the attainment of that PO / PSO
(Examine the column!). This is the Direct Attainment.

 For example, from the last row, we see that average
direct attainment of PO2 is 0.655 i.e., 65.5%
 Determine the Indirect Attainment based on all the
relevant surveys.
 Exit survey
 Employers feedback
 Placement (in campus & off campus)
 Training programs/workshop
 Parents feedback
 Course end survey etc.
 Combine them using suitable weights (typical 0.8
and 0.2)

 Example: PO2
Direct Attainment based on all relevant academic
activities: 65.5 %
Indirect Attainment based on all relevant surveys:
85.5 %
Combining them, attainment of PO2, for this batch
of students is: (0.8 x 65.5) + (0.2 x 85.5) = 69.5 %
 Repeat this for all POs and PSOs
 Set targets for each PO and PSO
 Close the quality loop for each PO and PSO
( Attainment < Target  Plan improvement actions
Attainment >= Target  Revise the target)

 Example: PO2
Combined Attainment: 69.5 %
Target: 75 %
Attainment Gap: 5.5 %
Improvement Action Plan:
 Introduce a group discussion activity in the 6th semester
that deals only with identifying and formulating complex
engineering problems
 Add in the 7th Semester, a one-day workshop on
complexity of engineering problems
 ... ... ...

Attainment of PEOs
 Evaluation of attainment of PEOs is generally based
only on Indirect Methods!
Indirect Methods:
Alumni Surveys, and Employer Surveys are
generally used to evaluate the attainment of PEOs.
 Thus the data from Surveys is used for evaluating
the attainment of POs and PSOs as well as PEOs.
 The actual responses useful for these two different
purposes are not identical!
57

Program Exit Survey - 1
Personal Details:
 Name
 Duration at the Institute (From...To....)
 Program of Study
 Rural / Urban Background
 Placement Status
 Status in GATE / GRE / ....
 ... ...
(What follows are sample questions only)
On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best) where relevant
(other ranges are possible, of Course)
58

 Level of comfort in working in groups
 Level of confidence in formulating imprecise real-
world problems as formal engineering problems
 Opportunities provided for acquiring leadership skills
 Communication skills and Interpersonal skills
acquired during your stay in the Institute
 Nature of final-year project: (Research,
Implementation, Fabrication, Purely theoretical, ...)
59

 Confidence in applying concepts of Mathematics and
Computing in solving problems
 Usefulness of professional core courses during job
interviews
 Availability and adequacy of modern tools in the
laboratories
 Opportunities provided for working in multi-
disciplinary project teams
 Usefulness of Mathematics, Professional core and
electives in competitive exams like GATE, GRE etc
60

 Level of understanding of the need to factor in
sustainability, ethical, health, public safety, and
environmental issues in the solutions developed by
you.
 Opportunities for working on real-life problems
during the program
 Extent of opportunities available for applying project
management principles in academic activities
undertaken by you during the program
 Extent of usefulness of Basic Science and
Engineering Science courses in problem solving
61

 New tools (outside the formal curriculum) learnt
 Extent of acquisition of critical analysis competency
in solving complex engineering problems (PG?)
 Opportunities available for working on projects with
research focus (PG?)
 Open suggestions for improving the quality of
the program
62

Alumni Survey - 1
Personal Details:
 Name
 Duration at the Institute (From...To....)
 Program of Study
 Rural / Urban Background
 ....
 ... ...
63

Alumni Survey - 2
On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best) where relevant
(other ranges are possible!) (These are sample
questions only):
 Current Position; Organization
 Initial Position; Organization
 Promotions, Organizations in which you worked
along with period in each organization, Rewards,
Awards, projects handled etc.
 Publication of Research Papers, White Papers etc.
 Level of comfort in working in groups – initially and at
present
64

Alumni Survey - 3
 Enhancement of qualifications (higher degrees,
certificate courses etc), knowledge, skills etc.
(workshops, training programs etc.)
 Level of confidence and success in formulating
imprecise real-world problems as formal engineering
problems – initially, now
 Success in leadership roles (preparedness at
program exit, success in on-site trainings etc.)
 Communication skills (level of acquisition during the
program, usefulness in the job, additional
acquisitions during work etc.)
65

Alumni Survey - 4
 Level of Interpersonal skills
 Ease with modern tools
 Learning curve with new tools
 New tools learnt during job
66

Alumni Survey - 5
 Your assessment of need for professional ethics in
work
 Comfort level with application of concepts
Mathematics, Engineering,… in solving real
problems
 Usefulness of professional core courses in your
professional practice.
 Relevance of professional electives to your
profession so far
67

Alumni Survey - 6
 Ability to factor in sustainability, ethical, health, public
safety, and environmental issues in the solutions
developed by you.
 Extent of application of project management
principles in the projects handled/being handled by
you
 Extent of usefulness of Basic Science and
Engineering Science courses in understanding
problems you solved so far in your career
 Open suggestions for improving the quality of
the Program
68

Employer Survey - 1
Organization Details: ...
Employee Details:
 Name
 Current Position
 Date of Joining the Organization
 Position at the time of joining ... ...
69

Employer Survey - 2
With respect to our Graduates, please indicate Your
assessment on the following:
• Ability to work well in groups
• Publication of Research Papers, White Papers etc.
• Level of confidence and success in formulating imprecise
real-world problems as formal engineering problems
• Success in leadership roles
• Communication skills
70

Employer Survey - 3
• Interpersonal skills
• Ability to learn and use new and modern tools
• Ethical Behavior
• Ability to factor in sustainability, ethical, health, public
safety, and environmental issues in the solutions
developed
71

Employer Survey - 4
• Extent of application of project management principles in
the projects handled/being handled by him/her
• Extent of critical analysis competency exhibited in solving
complex engineering problems
• Enthusiasm in participating your CSR activities
• Any specific negative traits observed
• Open suggestions for improving the quality of our
graduates
72

Using the Survey Data - 1
Using the survey data for evaluating the attainment of
a PO or PSO or PEO is same:
Example: PO 5 (Modern Tool Usage)
1. Identify the responses that are relevant to this PO
from each survey.
Example:
“Rate the Ability to learn and use new and modern
tools” from Employer Survey
“New tools (outside the formal curriculum) learnt”
from Program Exit Survey and so on ...
73

2. With data from only one type of survey, find the
average rating for one relevant question.
Example (cont’d): Using Program Exit Survey
50 people answered the example question given
earlier; 6 rated 1 (low); 35 rated 4; and 9 rated 5.
So, the average is: 3.82
3. Repeat for all other relevant questions from the
same survey
Example (cont’d): Assume there are 3 other relevant
questions and their average ratings are 3.91, 4.15,
and 4.88
4. The final average rating from this survey is 4.19
74

5. Set target levels of attainment
6. Example: Average value from a Survey is
< 3  Level 1
≥ 3 and < 4  Level 2
≥ 4  Level 3
(Other ranges are possible; discuss in department
and record the justifications for setting the target
levels the way they are set)
7. So, Attainment of PO 5 from the survey under
consideration is:
4.19  Level 3
8. Repeat with other types of Surveys if relevant.
75

9. Compute the grand average as the Final Value of
Attainment of this PO
Example: Attainment of PO5
From Program Exit Survey: Level 3
From Alumni Survey: Level 3
From Employer Survey: Level 2
Final Value: (3+3+2) / 3 = 2.67
10. Repeat this for each PO, PSO, and PEO
Surveys useful for Pos and PSOs:
Program Exit Survey, Alumni Survey, Employer Survey
Surveys useful for PEOs: Alumni Survey, Employer
Survey
76

Alternative approach for combining results from
different surveys:
 Previous approach: Result of each survey was
immediately quantized in to one of the 3 levels
 Alternatively: We can retain the average value
computed for each survey (without quantizing); find
the grand average value from all the relevant
surveys; and then quantize!
Example: Attainment of PO5
Values from Program Exit Survey, Alumni Survey,
Employer Survey are respectively:
4.19, 4.32, 3.79  Grand Average = 4.1  Level 3
77

CO PO and PSO attainment.pptx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to CO PO and PSO attainment.pptx

Similar to CO PO and PSO attainment.pptx (20)

More from Dr. Chetan Bhatt

More from Dr. Chetan Bhatt (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CO PO and PSO attainment.pptx