This presentation explains the new method (based on attainment level) of Course Outcome and Program Outcome Calculation. (with reference to National Board of Accreditation new SAR)

1. National Board of
Accreditation
Course Outcome and Program
Outcome Calculations
(New method Based on Attainment Level)
-By Ravikumar Tiwari,
Assistant Professor,
G.H.Raisoni College of Engineering, Nagpur
e- rravik.tiwari@gmail.com
@RaviTiwari90

2. Terminology (Abbreviations)
Course Outcomes (CO)
Program Outcomes (PO)
Program Educational Objectives (PEO)
Program Specific Outcomes (PSO)

3. Few definitions
Mapping Factor(Correlation Level)
 It indicates to what extent a
certain component(either
assessment method to CO or
CO to PO or PO to PEO & PSO)
 3-indicates Substantial (high)
mapping (high contribution
towards attainment)
 2-indicates Moderate
(medium) mapping (medium
contribution towards
attainment)
 1-indicates Slight (low)
mapping (some contribution
towards attainment)
Level of Attainment:
 This is just discretization of
percent attainment
 To not get confused with
mapping factor, will indicate
this by labels as
 HH(3)- High level of
attainment
 MM(2)- Medium level of
attainment
 LL(1)- Low level of
attainment
 NA(0)- No attainment

4. CO-PO mapping (example)
PO 1 PO 2 PO 3 PO 4 PO 5
PO
6
PO
7
PO
8
PO
9
PO
10
PO
11
PO
12
SEM
NBA
COD
E
SUB
CODE
Course
COURSE
OUTCO
MES
COURSE OUTCOMES
Statement
Thir
d
C203
BEXX2
01
Course
name
C203.1
.
3 3 2 2 - - 3 3 2 2 1 -
C203.2 - - - - - - 3 3 3 2 1 -
C203.3 - - - - - - 3 2 2 2 1 -
C203.4 - - - - - - 3 2 2 2 1 -
C203.5 - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 1 -
C203.6 - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 1 -
This is example for one course, the same to be done for all course of
program including courses taught in first year
1: Slight (Low) 2: Moderate (Medium) 3: Substantial (High) “-” : no correlation

5. Level of attainment
 Scale of levels can be defined by program coordinator or
Head of department
 Here 3 levels of attainment is taken as 1-Low; 2-medium; 3-
High
 3 levels of attainment can be defined as
 HH(3) :- 70% students scoring more than average marks or set
target marks in an assessment method
 MM(3):- 60% students scoring more than average marks or set
target marks in an assessment method
 LL (1) :- 50% students scoring more than average marks or set
target marks in an assessment method
 NA(0):- Less than 50% students scoring more than average
marks or set target marks in an assessment method

6. Course Outcome Calculations
 If targets are achieved then all the course outcomes are attained
for that year Program is expected to set higher targets for the
following years as a part of continuous improvement
 Also if scale of 3 levels is used in one year, and if higher level is
attained then scale of 5 levels can be used following year. Scale of
5 level may be defined as follows:
HH(5) :- 80% students scoring more than average marks or set target
marks in an assessment method
HM(4):- 70% students scoring more than average marks or set target
marks in an assessment method
MM (3) :- 60% students scoring more than average marks or set target
marks in an assessment method
ML (2) :- 50% students scoring more than average marks or set target
marks in an assessment method
LL (1) :- 40% students scoring more than average marks or set target
marks in an assessment method
NA(0):- Less than 40% students scoring more than average marks or set
target marks in an assessment method
 If targets are not achieved then instead of lowering target; program
should put in place an action plan to attain the target in
subsequent years

7. Target Setting for each
assessment method
 For setting up target average; average marks of last
three exam must be taken into consideration and it
should be kept as target average marks
 If average marks of last exams are not available then
current average marks can also be considered as
target attainment
 This would be different for each assessment method
(e.g. Internal assessment: assignment1, assignment2,
class test1, class test2 etc. External assessment: End sem
exam/university exam, Practical external exam)
 To be noted here last three exam should be taken into
account i.e. to say one course may be offered in even
and odd both sem as under CBCS

8. Mapping of CO with Assessment
methods (example)
Internal Component
External
Component
Teacher Assignment Class Test Practical
examination
(if there for
the course)
End Sem
Exam
Course
Name
Course
Outcome
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3
Course:
C301
(Course
Name)
C301.1
2 - - - - 3 - - 3 3
C301.2
1 - - 2 - 3 - - 3 3
C301.3
- 3 1 - 2 - 3 - 3 3
C301.4
3 - - - 1 - 3 - 3 3
C301.5
- 1 - - - - - 3 3 3
C301.6
- - 3 - 3 - - 3 3 3
1: Slight (Low) 2: Moderate (Medium) 3: Substantial (High) “-” : no correlation

9. Justification of Mapping
 Proper justification for course outcomes with assessment must be
provided.
 For internal assessment like teacher assignment and class test,
one can design the assessment based on Course Outcomes
 For example, Class Test-1 is based on CO1 and CO2 with equal
weightage given to both COs and that is why CO1 & CO2 both
mapped with C1 with mapping factor of 3 (refer previous slide).
Same for Class Test-2(C2) & C3 is done.
 While in practical examination, if you have practical's based on
COs and assessment is available practical-wise then mapping
can be done CO-wise or else equal contribution to all COs can
be considered as done here (mapping factor 3 with all COs)
 Same for end semester/University exam, if questions are based
on COs and also evaluation is available question-wise then COs
to be mapped question-wise or else equal contribution to all
COs can be considered as done here (mapping factor 3 with all
COs)

10. CO based practical's and
end sem questions (for TIER-I)
 For TIER-I category institutes (Autonomous college and deemed
university), where all exams are taken by institute; they can
have list of practical's designed keeping Course Outcome in
mind. Also evaluation should be done CO-wise.
 Same with End-Sem(term) exam, questions should be so
deigned based to assess Course Outcome
 For example, (considering six CO), Six practical's each
specifically for each CO. Also the internal ERP software can be
so designed where marks for each CO to be inserted and then it
can be converted out of (25/50)
 For end sem too, marks of each CO based question should be
inserted and then total marks can be calculated
 This will really helpful for assessing Course Outcomes when all
marks of COs are available separately

11. Definition of attainment
 Attainment can be defined as what percentage of students
have above set target marks
 Example, if 140 students appeared in an end semester exam
(60 marks) and you have set target marks as 30 (last three
exam average to be considered while deciding target marks)
THEN attainment can be calculated as:
 % Attainment= (No. of students scoring 30 or above marks /
140)*100
 Let’s say 104 students scored 30 or above marks Then %
attainment would be
 % Attainment= (104/140)*100 =74.28%
 Therefore, level of attainment for end sem exam is “3” as
scale is defined

12. Assigning levels to assessment
method
Teacher Assignment(4) Class Test(20) Pr(25) ESE
Marks
(60)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 Practical
Average
(current
exam)
3 4 4 3 4 9.2 11.9 10.5 21 28.0
Target
average(avg
. of last 3
exam)
4 4 4 4 4 10 9 10 20 25
%
Attainment
51 76.1 77.5 55.1 74 51 74.6 61 78 55
Level
LL HH HH LL HH LL HH MM HH LL
Levels
HH(3) :- Above 70%
MM(2):- Above 60%
LL (1) :- Above 50%
NA (0) :- less than 50%
**This are actual calculation done
for my subject

13. Course Outcome Calculation
Teacher Assignment Class Test End Sem
Exam
(Externa
l
compone
nt)
Course
Name
Cours
e
Outco
me
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 PR
Levels LL HH HH LL HH LL HH MM HH LL
Course:C
301
(Course
Name)
C301.
1 2 - - - - 3 - - 3 3
C301.
2 1 - - 2 - 3 - - 3 3
C301.
3 - 3 1 - 2 - 3 - 3 3
C301.
4
3 - - - 1 - 3 - 3 3
C301.
5 - 1 - - - - - 3 3 3
C301.
6 - - 3 - 3 - - 3 3 3

14. Course Outcome Calculation
For calculation purpose ‘-’ is replaced by ‘0’
Teacher Assignment Class Test
Practi
cal [*int]
Attainme
nt Level
(Internal)
End
Sem
Exam
[*ext]
Attainme
nt Level
(External
)
Overall
Attain
ment
Course
Name
Course
Outco
me
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 Pr
Levels LL HH HH LL HH LL HH MM HH LL
Level Point
1 3 3 1 3 1 3 2 3 1
int*0.
4+
ext*0.
6
Course:
C301
C301.1
2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 *1.75 3 1 1.30
(Cours
e
Name)
C301.2 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 3 1.67 3 1 1.27
C301.3 0 3 1 0 2 0 3 0 3 2.67 3 1 1.67
C301.4 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 2.20 3 1 1.48
C301.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2.57 3 1 1.63
C301.6 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 3 2.25 3 1 1.50
*Calculation explained in next slide

15. Course Outcome
Calculation Explained
Teacher Assignment Class Test
Practi
cal [*int]
Attainme
nt Level
(Internal)
End
Sem
Exam
[*ext]
Attainme
nt Level
(External
)
Overall
Attain
ment
Course
Name
Course
Outco
me
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 Pr
Levels LL HH HH LL HH LL HH MM HH LL
Level Point
1 3 3 1 3 1 3 2 3 1
int*0.
4+
ext*0.
6
Course:
C301
C301.1
2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1.75 3 1 1.30
Attainment Level(internal)= Σ (Mapping factor*Level Points)/ Σ Mapping factor
= (2*1+0*3+0*3+0*1+ 0*3+3*1+0*3+0*2+3*3)/ (2+3+3)
=1.75
Attainment Level (external)= (3*1)/3=1
Overall Attainment CO1(C301.1) (considering 40% contribution from internal assessment
and 60% from external assessment) = 1.75*0.4+1*0.6= 1.30

16. Summary and Remarks on
attainment
Course
Outcome
Attainment
Level
Remarks
C301.1 1.30 Attained
C301.2 1.27 Attained
C301.3 1.67 Attained
C301.4 1.48 Attained
C301.5 1.63 Attained
C301.6 1.50 Attained

17. Analogy to Credit Grade
System
 It is just like the Grading system where we defined cut-off of
marks
 Here cut-off are nothing but the Target level of attainment
which we have defined as
HH(3) :- 70% students scoring more than average marks or set
target marks in an assessment method
MM(3):- 60% students scoring more than average marks or set
target marks in an assessment method
LL (1) :- 50% students scoring more than average marks or set
target marks in an assessment method
NA(0):- Less than 50% students scoring more than average marks
or set target marks in an assessment method

18. Analogy to Credit Grade
System
 Students who just gets more than cut-off marks pass
the exam but with lower grades
 Same in this method too, even if the level of
attainment is just “1” , we can say that Course
Outcome is attained
 If Level of attainment is less than “1” then Course
Outcome is not attained and then proper Gap
Analysis to be done
 If similar method is used for Outcome calculation of
previous exam then we can set the Target for Level
Attainment or else during mid of term seeing
performance of students in internal component,
Teacher can set target

19. Target for Level Attainment
and Gap Analysis
Couse
Outcome
Attainmen
t Level for
last exam
Target
for
current
exam
Attainment
Level of
current
exam
Gap Gap Analysis
C301.1 1.2 2 1.30 0.70 Performance of
students in end
semester exam is
not as expected
C301.2 1.4 2 1.27 0.73
C301.3 1.5 2 1.67 0.33
C301.4 1.8 2 1.48 0.52
C301.5 1.4 2 1.63 0.37
C301.6 1.3 2 1.50 0.50
*Target should be kept based on the performance of students in first and
second Class Test but before term ends, so that Teacher will have sufficient
time to work on delivery (if performance is on lower side)

20. Program Outcome
Calculations

21. Program Articulation Matrix with Program
Outcomes & PSO (to be done for all
courses) [3.1 point in NBA SAR]
Course
PO1
PO2
PO3
PO4
PO5
PO6
PO7
PO8
PO9
PO10
PO11
PO12
PSO1
PSO2
PSO3
C101
3 3 - - - - - - - - - 2 - - -
C102
3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C103
3 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C104
3 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C105
3 3 3 - - - - - - - - - - - -
C107
3 3 - - - - - - - - - 3 - - -
C108

22. Course Articulation Matrix [to be
done for all courses of program]
Course
COURSE OUTCOMES [Statement]
PO1
PO2
PO3
PO4
PO5
PO6
PO7
PO8
PO9
PO10
PO11
PO12
PSO1
PSO2
PSO3
C301
C301.1 1 1 3 2 2 - - - 1 - - - 2 2 1
C301.2 1 1 3 2 3 - - - 1 - - - 2 2 1
C301.3 1 1 3 3 3 - - - 1 - - - 3 3 1
C301.4 1 1 3 3 3 - - - 1 - - - 3 3 1
C301.5 1 2 3 3 3 - - - 1 - - 1 3 3 1
C301.6 1 2 3 3 3 - - - 1 - - 1 3 3 1

23. Program Outcome
Calculation
 For Calculation of Program Outcome, we can use two method:
(i)Direct Method (ii)Indirect Method
 Direct Method: In direct method, we take CO attainment of all
courses contributing to particular Program Outcomes and then
calculate the attainment based on mapping (as per course
articulation matrix)
 Indirect Method: In indirect method, surveys from current passing out
students (program exit survey), survey from employer (during
placement), survey from industry person (if students are working as
intern for some industry) to be taken.
All this survey needs to be quantified [put questions like rate our students
in the scale of 5 (5-excellent, 1-not satisfactory)]
Indirect method too should be based on predefined levels
Example; Level-3: 80% or above survey takers giving 4 or 5 marks
Level-2: 70% or above survey takers giving 4 or 5 marks
Level-1: 60% or above survey takers giving 4 or 5 marks

24. Program Outcome Calculation
[Direct Method]
Co
urse
Course
Outco
mes
Attainmen
t Level
Column A
PO1
colum
n B
PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3
C3
01
C301.1 1.5 1 1 3 2 2 1 - 1 1 - - - 2 2 1
C301.2 2.1 1 1 3 2 3 1 - - 1 - - - 2 2 1
C301.3 2.4 1 1 3 3 3 - - - 1 2 - - 3 3 1
C301.4 2.5 1 1 3 3 3 2 - - 1 - - - 3 3 1
C301.5 2.4 1 2 3 3 3 - - 1 1 - - 1 3 3 1
C301.6 2.7 1 2 3 3 3 2 - - 1 2 - 1 3 3 1
C3
02
C302.1 1.8 - - - - - - 1 - 2 1 3 - - - -
C302.2 1.9 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - -
C302.3 1.7 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - -
C302.4 2.7 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - -
C302.5 2.1 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - -
C302.6 1.4 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - -
Program
Outcome
Attainmen
t 2.27 2.34 2.27 2.33 2.31 2.33 1.93 1.95 2.04 2.40 1.93 2.55 2.33 2.33 2.27
Here only 2 course are taken but for actual calculations all courses needs to be taken
Calculation: PO1= (column A* Column B)/Sum(column B)
This can be easily done in excel

25. Program Outcome Calculation
[Indirect Method]
Attainment levels
Survey
Mappin
g ColA
PO1
ColB
PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9
PO1
0
PO1
1
PO1
2
PSO
1
PSO
2
PSO
3
Program
Exit
Survey 1 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 3
Employe
r Survey 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 2
External
Guide
Survey 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3
Program
Outcome
Attainme
nt 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6
Calculation: PO1= ColA*ColB/5

26. Program Outcome Attainment
[Indirect Method]
3
2
3
2
3
1
3 3
1
3 3
2
3
2
3
2
3
1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3
1
2 22
3 3 3 3
2
3 3
2
3
2
3 3 3 3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3
Program Outcomes Attainment (Indirect Method)
Program Exit Survey Employer Survey External Guide Survey

27. Program Outcome
Calculation [Overall]
Method PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3
Direct
Method 2.27 2.34 2.27 2.33 2.31 2.33 1.93 1.95 2.04 2.40 1.93 2.55 2.33 2.33 2.27
Indirect
Method 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.6 1.8 2.6 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6
Overall
Attainm
ent
(Direct*
0.6+indi
rect*0.4
) 2.24 2.52 2.24 2.36 2.43 2.12 2.20 2.21 1.94 2.48 2.04 2.65 2.28 2.36 2.40
Here Direct method is considered to have 60% contribution
and indirect method as 40% contribution
Calculation: Overall Attainment= direct*0.6+indirect*0.4

28. Graphs and Charts
2.27
2.34
2.27
2.33 2.31 2.33
1.93 1.95
2.04
2.40
1.93
2.55
2.33 2.33
2.27
2.2
2.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
1.8
2.6 2.6
1.8
2.6
2.2
2.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3
Program Outcome and Program Specific Outcome Attainment
Direct Method Indirect Method

29. Graphs and Charts
2.24
2.52
2.24
2.36
2.43
2.12
2.20 2.21
1.94
2.48
2.04
2.65
2.28
2.36 2.40
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PO11 PO12 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3
Overall Attainment: Program Outcomes and Program Specific
Outcomes

30. Few points to remember
 Outcome calculation can not be rigid, that is to say one
can have ‘n’ number of methods to calculate
 Only thing to remember is method should be properly
justified
 Also the method described in this presentation is
completely based on my understanding. I have tried to
addressed all explanation of calculation with proper
justification.
 Also if someone disagrees with the method, I am up for
suggestion but no debate
 For workshop or session on NBA outcome accreditation,
send me e-mail on rravik.tiwari@gmail.com

31. Consultancy for Software
firm/company
 The software companies who are into education
software business , if wants to develops a software/
web portal for Course Outcome and Program
Outcome Calculation, I can consult for developing
algorithm and method
 Write an e-mail to me(on title slide) for such work.

32. Thanking You