NATE NBA Module 3 - Week11

NBA Accreditation and Teaching-Learning in Engineering (NATE)
N J Rao and K Rajanikanth
Module 3: Instruction and Accreditation

Week 11: NBA Criteria 1 to 3 (Key Words: Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4, and Criterion 5)
20
M3 U11: Program Curriculum and Teaching–Learning Processes - 1
Recap
 Understood the processes used to define the Vision, Mission, and PEOs.
 Understood the nature of the matrix of PEOs and elements of Mission statements and justification
20
of the correlations.
M3 U11: Outcome
M3 U11: Understand the SAR requirements related to Program Curriculum. (Criterion 2 of SAR:
Program Curriculum, Teaching-Learning Processes – Sub-Criteria 2.1: Program Curriculum)
Criterion 2: Program Curriculum and Teaching–Learning Processes
EL
 Criterion 2 is concerned with Program Curriculum and Teaching–Learning Processes.
 The sub-criteria, the required processes, the allocation of marks, and the required exhibits differ
between Tier 1 and Tier II institutes.
PT
Allocation of Marks
Sub-Criterion Tier I Tier II
2.1 Program Curriculum 30 20

N
2.2 Teaching-Learning Processes 70 100
TOTAL 100 120

-
Sub-Criterion 2.1: Program Curriculum Tier I Institute

Sub-Criteria – Allocation of Marks
E
Sub-Criteria Marks
AT
2.1.1 State the process for designing the program curriculum 10
2.1.2 Structure of the Curriculum 5
2.1.3 State the components of the curriculum 5

N
2.1.4 State the process used to identify extent of compliance of the curriculum for 10
attaining the POs and PSOs
TOTAL 30
NATE-Module 3-Week-11 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 1

Sub-Criterion 2.1.1
State the process for designing the program curriculum.

Evaluation Guidelines:
 Process used to demonstrate how the program curriculum is evolved and periodically reviewed
considering the POs and PSOs. Also consider the involvement of the Industry.
20
Exhibits/Context to be Observed/Assessed:
 Documentary evidence to indicate the process which demonstrates how the program curriculum
is evolved and periodically reviewed considering the POs and PSOs.
 Process document and implementation records.
20
 BoS composition; periodicity of the meeting; participation of industry.
 Minutes of the Meetings of BoS.
 Feedback and Review mechanisms.
 Correlations to POs and PSOs
Sub-Criteria 2.1.2 and 2.1.3
EL
2.1.2 Structure of the Curriculum.
2.1.3 State the components of the curriculum
 Expectation in 2.1.2 & 2.1.3 is that the curriculum has well balanced structure & appropriate for
PT
a degree program.
 Documentary Evidence
Structure of the Curriculum

N
Course Course Total Number of Contact Hours Credits

Code Title Lecture (L) Tutorial (T) Practical # (P) Total
-
Total
# Seminars, Project Works may be considered as practical

E
Program curriculum grouping based on course components
Course Component Curriculum Content (% of total Total number of Total number

AT
number of credits of the program) contact hours of credits
Basic Sciences
Engineering Sciences
N
Humanities and Social Sciences
Program Core
Program Electives

Open Electives
Project(s)
Internships/Seminars
20
Any other (please specify
Total number of credits
Sub-Criterion 2.1.4
State the process used to identify extent of compliance of the curriculum for attaining the POs and PSOs.
20
 Process used to identify extent of compliance of curriculum for attaining POs & PSOs.
 Documentary evidence to indicate the process which ensures mapping/compliance of Curriculum
with the POs & PSOs.
EL
Process which ensures mapping/compliance of Curriculum with the POs &
PSOs:
 Program Articulation Matrix (Sub-Criterion 3.1) depicts the correlation between the courses and
the Program Outcomes (POs) & Program Specific Outcomes (PSOs). Column averages indicate
the extent to which the curriculum is compliant to the POs and PSOs. A sparse column shows that
PT
the corresponding PO/PSO is not adequately addressed by the curriculum.
 Expectations from relevant organizations like AICTE, ACM/IEEE, Industry may also be
considered.
 Process document and implementation records must be available.
N
Sub-Criterion 2.1: Program Curriculum Tier II Institute

Sub-Criteria and Allocation of Marks
Sub-Criteria Marks
-
10
2.1.1 State the process used to identify extent of compliance of the University curriculum for
attaining the POs and PSOs; mention the identified curricular gaps, if any
E
10
2.1.2 State the delivery details of the content beyond the syllabus for the attainment of POs &
PSOs
AT
20
TOTAL
Note: In case all POs & PSOs are being demonstrably met through University Curriculum then 2.1.2
will not be applicable and the weightage of 2.1.1 will be 20.
N
Sub-Criterion 2.1.1
State the process used to identify extent of compliance of the University curriculum for attaining the
POs and PSOs; mention the identified curricular gaps, if any.

A. Process used to identify extent of compliance of university curriculum for attaining POs & PSOs –
6 Marks
B. List the curricular gaps for the attainment of defined POs & PSOs – 4 Marks
 Exhibits/Context to be Observed/Assessed:
20
o Documentary evidence to indicate the process which ensures mapping/compliance of
University Curriculum with the POs & PSOs; Identification of gaps; if any.
o Effective participation of internal and external department stakeholders with effective
process implementation.
20
 The process used to identify extent of compliance of the University curriculum for attaining the
POs and PSOs can be quite similar to the one described for Tier I institute.
 Identified curricular gaps, if any, must be listed along with the justifications for the
appropriateness of the identified gaps.
 Process document and implementation records must be available.
EL
Sub-Criterion 2.1.2
State the delivery details of the content beyond the syllabus for the attainment of POs & PSOs.
A. Steps taken to get identified gaps included in the curriculum. (e.g. letter to University/BOS) (2
PT
Marks)
B. Delivery details of content beyond syllabus (5 Marks)
C. Mapping of content beyond syllabus with the POs & PSOs (3 Marks)
(A. Documentary evidence of steps taken at regular interval.)
N
 A letter to the Affiliating University and Chairperson, University BoS, through proper channel,
providing inputs and suggestions regarding curricular gaps and possible addition of new
content/add-on courses in the curriculum, to bridge the gap and to better attain program
-
outcome(s).
 Have evidence of such a communication.
 Have evidence of periodic follow-up action.
E
Exhibits/Context to be Observed/Assessed (continued):

(B. Delivery details of content beyond syllabus.)
AT
o Documentary evidence of delivery details of content beyond syllabus, year-wise, in the specified
format.
 Content beyond syllabus may include additional course / learning material / content / laboratory
experiments / projects etc.
N
 The mapping between additional content and the POs/PSOs addressed by that content must be
justifiable.
 It is a good practice to analyze the impact of the additional content delivered.
(B. Delivery details of content beyond syllabus.)

 The delivery details must be provided for the past three academic years.
 Format in which delivery details of additional contents are to be provided:
Sl. No. Gap Action Date-Month-Year Resource Person with % of Students Relevance to POs,
Taken Designation PSOs
20
.

(C. Mapping of content beyond syllabus with the POs & PSOs.)
20
o Availability and appropriateness of Mapping table between contents delivered and Program
outcomes/ Program specific outcomes (Course outcomes)
 As already noted, the mapping between the additional contents delivered and POs / PSOs must be
available and appropriate.
(Note: Departments need to exercise good care in stating these mappings.)
EL
Exercises
 State the process followed by you to establish the extent to which your curriculum (Tier I
institute) or University curriculum (Tier II institute) is addressing the POs and PSOs.
Thank you for sharing the results of the exercises at [email protected]
PT
M3 U12
 Understand the SAR requirements related to the Teaching–Learning Processes.

(Criterion 2 of SAR: Program Curriculum, Teaching-Learning Processes – Sub-Criteria 2.2:
Teaching–Learning Processes.)
N
-
E
AT
N

M3 U12: Program Curriculum and Teaching–Learning Processes – 1I
Recap
 Understood the SAR requirements related to Program Curriculum. (Criterion 2 of SAR –

Sub-Criterion 2.1)
20
M3 U12: Outcome
 Understand the SAR requirements related to Teaching-Learning Processes. (Criterion 2 of SAR –

Sub-Criterion 2.2)
Sub-Criterion 2.2 Teaching-Learning Processes
20
 This sub-criterion is concerned with the quality of:
o Teaching and Learning
o Examinations
o Projects
 It is also concerned with:
EL
o Interaction with Industry
o Internships / Summer training for students
 5 sub-criteria; almost the same for both Tier I and Tier II institutes though allocations of marks
are different!
PT
Allocation of Marks
Evaluation Guideline Tier I Tier II
15 25
N
2.2.1 Describe the Process followed to improve quality of Teaching Learning
15 20
2.2.2 Quality of end semester examination, internal semester question papers,
assignments and evaluation*
-
20 25
2.2.3 Quality of student projects
10 15
E
2.2.4 Initiatives related to industry interaction
10 15
2.2.5 Initiatives related to industry internship/summer training
AT
70 100
TOTAL
* Quality of End semester examination is not relevant for Tier II institutes.

N

Sub-Criterion 2.2.1
Describe the Process followed to improve quality of Teaching - Learning

Tier I Tier II
Evaluation Guideline
20
2 3
A. Adherence to Academic Calendar
2 3
B. Pedagogical initiatives
20
2 4
C. Methodologies to support weak students and encourage bright students
2 3
D. Quality of classroom teaching (Observation in a Class)
2 3
E. Conduct of experiments (Observation in Lab)
3 3
EL
F. Continuous Assessment in the laboratory
2 6
G. Student feedback of teaching - learning process and actions taken
15 25
TOTAL
PT
Sub-Criterion 2.2.1: Guidelines & Exhibits
A. Describe the Process followed to improve quality of Teaching - Learning

Exhibits:
N
Availability of Academic Calendar based on University academic calendar and its effective
compliance.
o Any institute generally has an academic calendar that is based on the academic calendar of the
University!
-
o The department must have records showing compliance to such a calendar! The records must
show that the academic events (like internal tests) are being organized as per the schedule. Any
deviations must be recorded along with the reasons for the deviations.
E
B. Pedagogical initiatives
Exhibits:
AT
Documentary evidence to support implementation of pedagogical initiatives such as real-life

examples, collaborative learning, ICT supported learning, interactive classrooms etc.
o Documentary evidence must be available for every pedagogical initiative claimed by the
department.
N
o Lesson plans, Teaching diaries must show evidence of the initiative being planned and
implemented.
o It is desirable to assess the impact of the initiative also. (Survey).

C. Methodologies to support weak students and encourage bright students
Exhibits:
Guidelines to identify weak and bright students; post identification actions taken; impact observed.
o Written procedure must be available for identifying weak and bright students. Evidence of
following this procedure must be available.
20
o Records of initiatives like remedial classes for weak students must be maintained. Records of
initiatives like optional assignments to challenge bright students must be maintained.
o Records of impact analysis must be available.
D. Quality of classroom teaching
20
Exhibits / Context:
Classroom ambience; efforts to keep students engaged (also to be verified during interaction with the
students).
E. Conduct of experiments
Exhibits / Context:
Quality of laboratory experience with respect to conducting, recording observations, analysis
EL
etc.(also to be verified during interaction with the students)
F. Continuous Assessment in the laboratory
Exhibits / Context:
Internal Semester examination and internal marks thereof, Practical record books, each experiment
assessment, final marks based on assessment of all the experiments and other assessments; if any.
PT
o Records must be available showing assessment of each experiment, final assessment; internal
examination marks if relevant, and so on.
G. Student feedback of teaching learning process and actions taken

Exhibits / Context:
N
Feedback format, frequency, analysis and actions taken (also to be verified during interaction with
students)
o All institutes generally collect student feedback. Format and frequency are also generally defined
explicitly.
-
o However, many departments do not have any records showing the analysis of the feedback data!
Nor do they have records of any actions taken! As noted earlier in Module 2, it is essential to
E
analyze the feedback data, take appropriate actions and maintain relevant records.
Sub-Criterion 2.2.2
AT
Quality of end semester examination, internal semester question papers, assignments and
evaluation.

N
A. Process for internal semester question paper setting and evaluation and 3 5
effective process implementation
B. Process to ensure questions from outcomes/learning levels perspective 2 5

C. Evidence of COs coverage in class test / mid-term tests 5 5
D. Quality of Assignment and its relevance to COs 5 5
TOTAL 15 20
20
A. Process for internal semester question paper setting and evaluation and effective process
implementation
Exhibits:
20
Process of internal semester question paper setting, model answers, evaluation and its compliance.
o Process document (Schedule, Format including tags etc)
o Implementation records
B. Process to ensure questions from outcomes/learning levels perspective

Exhibits:
Question paper validation to ensure desired standard from outcome attainment perspective as well as
EL
learning levels perspective.
o QP scrutiny committee must be established. What should be its composition?

o Process for QP validation must be available.
PT
o Implementation records must be available. (Information about Rejected/ Modified Question
Papers must also be maintained.)
C. Evidence of COs coverage in class test / mid-term tests

Exhibits:
N
Mapping of questions with the Course outcomes

o Questions must be tagged with COs
o The mapping must be justified.
o Must ensure that all COs are addressed.
-
o Should the tags be exposed to the students?
D. Quality of Assignment and its relevance to COs

Exhibits:
E
Assignments to promote self-learning, survey of contents from multiple sources, assignment

evaluation and feedback to the students, mapping with the COs.
AT
o Evaluation of assignments and providing feedback to the students are essential! These activities
represent substantial load on the faculty!
o Assignments also must be mapped to COs. The mapping must be justifiable.
o Many departments treat “assignments” too casually! This must be avoided.
N

Sub-Criterion 2.2.3
Quality of student projects. Tier I Institute
Evaluation Guideline Tier I
20
A. Identification of projects and allocation methodology to Faculty Members 2
B. Types and relevance of the projects and their contribution towards attainment of POs 2
and PSOs
C. Project related to Industry 3
20
D. Process for monitoring and evaluation 2
E. Process to assess individual and team performance 3
F. Quality of completed projects/working prototypes 5
G. Evidences of papers published /Awards received by projects etc. 3
EL
TOTAL 20
Quality of student projects. Tier II Institute

PT
Evaluation Guideline Tier II
A. Identification of projects and allocation methodology to Faculty Members 3

N
B. Types and relevance of the projects and their contribution towards attainment of POs 5
and PSOs
C. Process for monitoring and evaluation 5

-
D. Process to assess individual and team performance 5
E. Quality of completed projects/working prototypes 5

E
F. Evidences of papers published /Awards received by projects etc. 2
TOTAL 25
AT
Quality of student projects.

Comparison between Tier I and Tier II Institutes (25 in both the cases):
 Evaluation guideline C of Tier I institute is absent for Tier II institute. Thus Tier II institute has
only 6 evaluation guidelines while Tier I institute has 7 guidelines.
N
 The remaining evaluation guidelines are identical in both the cases though the allocations of
marks are different.

A. Identification of projects and allocation methodology to Faculty Members.

Exhibits:
Projects identification and guide allocation Process.
20
o Project is a curricular component for most of the departments. They do follow a process.
However, some may not have a process document indicating the details of guidelines for project
identification and allocation of project guides. They may be following informal procedures!
o It is essential to have a process document and implementation records for the project work.
Better to have an institute-wide process, common for all the programs.
20
o
B. Types and relevance of the projects and their contribution towards attainment of POs and PSOs.
Exhibits:
Projects classification (application, product, research, review etc); consideration to factors such as
environment, safety, ethics, cost, standards and mapping with POs and PSOs.
EL
o Process document must indicate that the project must consider factors such as environment as
indicated above.
o Rubrics for project evaluation must include these attributes also.
o Periodic monitoring also must consider these factors.
PT
C. Project related to Industry (Absent for Tier II Institute)
D. Process for monitoring and evaluation. (Guideline C for Tier II Institute.)
Exhibits / Context:
Continuous monitoring mechanism and evaluation.

N
o Process document must include guidelines for periodic monitoring, evaluation, and the
periodicity.
o Appropriate rubrics for evaluation must be developed and shared with students up front (as
discussed in Module 2).
-
o Implementation records must be maintained.
E. Process to assess individual and team performance. (Guideline D for Tier II Institute.)
Exhibits / Context:
E
Methodology (Appropriately documented) to assess individual contribution/ understanding of the

AT
project as well as collective contribution / understanding.
o Process must include appropriate rubrics.

o The methodology must be documented, and implementation records must reflect adherence to
the documented methodology.
o A good practice is to share these details with students up front.
N
F. Quality of completed projects/working prototypes. (Guideline E for Tier II Institute.)

Exhibits / Context:
Based on Projects demonstration.
G. Evidences of papers published /Awards received by projects etc. (Guideline F for Tier II Institute.)

Exhibits / Context:
Quality of place (host) where the paper has been published /quality of competition in which award has
been won. (All the relevant details must be readily available for inspection by the visiting team.)
Sub-Criterion 2.2.4
20
Initiatives related to industry interaction. (Tier I Institute)
Evaluation Guideline Tier I
A. Industry supported laboratories. 2
20
B. Industry involvement in the program design and Curriculum. 3
C. Industry involvement in partial delivery of any regular courses for students. 3
D. Impact analysis of industry institute interaction and actions taken thereof. 2
TOTAL 10
EL
Initiatives related to industry interaction. (Tier II Institute)
Evaluation Guideline Tier II

PT
A. Industry supported laboratories. 5
B. Industry involvement in the program design and partial delivery of any regular 5
courses for students.
N
C. Impact analysis of industry institute interaction and actions taken thereof. 5
TOTAL 15
Comparison between Tier I and Tier II Institutes:

-
 10 marks for Tier I Institute and 15 marks for Tier II Institute.

 4 Evaluation guidelines for Tier I institute and only 3 evaluation guidelines for Tier II institute.
However, the requirements are identical!
E

AT
 Industry supported laboratories.

Exhibits: Type of Industries, Type of Labs, objectives, utilization and effectiveness
 Industry involvement in the program design and partial delivery of any regular courses for
students. (Shown as two separate guidelines for Tier I Institute.)
Exhibits: Documentary evidence
N
 Impact analysis of industry institute interaction and actions taken thereof.

Exhibits: Analysis and actions taken thereof.
o Impact analysis can be based on Surveys. Actions must be taken based on the impact analysis
and these actions must be recorded.

Sub-Criterion 2.2.5
Initiatives related to industry internship/summer training.

20
A. Industrial training/tours for students. 2 3
B. Industrial internship / summer training of more than two weeks and post 3 4
training assessment.
20
C. Impact analysis of industrial training. 2 4
D. Student feedback on initiatives. 3 4
TOTAL 10 15
Sub Criterion 2.2.5: Exhibits
EL
Documentary Evidence
A and B: Type of Industries, planned or non-planned activity, objectives clearly defined, Number of
students participated, relevant area of training, visit report.
C and D: Impact analysis and feedback format, analysis and actions taken. (Also to be verified during
PT
interaction with students)
Exercises
 Describe the initiatives implemented in your department to improve the quality of teaching –
learning process.
N
Thank you for sharing the results of the exercises at [email protected]
M3 U13
 Understand the Criterion 3 of SAR: Course Outcomes and Program Outcomes.

-
E
AT
N

M3 U13: NBA Criterion 3: Course Outcomes and Program Outcomes -1
Recap
 We understood the teaching-learning processes and the initiatives taken for improving the
quality of assessment and learning to meet the requirements of Criterion 2 of SAR.
20
M3 U13 Outcome
 Understand how to establish the correlation between the courses and the POs & PSOs as per NBA
Criterion 3.1for Tier II and Tier I institutions.
Criterion 3: COs, POs and PSOs
20
 Criterion 3 is concerned with the attainment of
o Course Outcomes
o Program Outcomes and Program Specific Outcomes
 This criterion, its sub-criteria, and the exhibits differ between the Tier II and Tier I institutes,
beside the difference in the allocation of marks.
EL
Weightages to Sub-Criteria of C3
NBA Criterion TIER 1 Marks TIER 2 Marks
3. Course Outcomes and Program Outcomes 175 120

PT
3.1 Correlation between COs and POs-PSOs 25 20
3.2 Attainment of COs 75 50
3.3 Attainment of POs and PSOs 75 50
Evaluation Guidelines for 3.1

N
Tier II
3.1.1 Evidence of COs being defined for every course (5)
3.1.2 Explanation of CO-PO/PSO tables to be ascertained (5)
-
3.1.3 Explanation of program level Course-PO/PSO tables to be ascertained (10)

Tier I
A. Evidence of COs being defined for every course (5)
E
B. Availability of COs embedded in the syllabi (5)

C. Explanation of Course Articulation Matrix table to be ascertained (5)
AT
D. Explanation of Program Articulation Matrix tables to be ascertained (10)
Sub-Criterion 3.1.1-Tier II
3.1.1. Course Outcomes (5)
Guideline: Evidence of COs being defined for every course

N
 While COs of three courses from 2nd, 3rd and final year of study need to be included in the SAR,
COs for all the courses need to be prepared by the Department.
 The Department should make available COs of any course as demanded by the visiting
committee.

 Appropriateness of the statements shall be seen for at least one course each from 2nd, 3rd and
final year of study Subjective evaluation by the visiting team.
SC 3.1.1 - Tier II
20
 As the Tier II Institutions are affiliated to a University the curriculum design and writing COs for
all the courses are done by the Boards of Studies of the University.
 Sometimes the BOS may also do the Mapping of COs to POs and PSOs.
 A department of Tier II institution may accept COs and their mapping as given or may reconsider
and rewrite some of the COs, and their mapping to POs and PSOs.
20
 If a Tier II college decides to rewrite COs, it should follow the same process across all
Departments.
Rewriting COs and their Tagging - Tier II
 While NBA does not mandate use of Revised Bloom Taxonomy framework for writing COs, it has
been the de facto accepted framework.
EL
 In this framework, COs are written starting with an Action Verb, followed by Knowledge
Elements, Conditions (optional) and Criteria (optional).
 COs need to be rewritten for the content given by the University.
Format for Writing COs

PT
Course Outcome
Course Code.1 < CO Statement >

N

-
Sample: COs of a Course

E
Course: Analog Circuits ad Systems Credits: 3:0:1

Year of Offering: 2020-2021
AT
Course Outcome
C202.1 Understand the characteristics of linear one-port and two-port signal processing networks
C202.2 Model one-port devices including R, L, C and diodes, two-port networks, and active devices
including amplifiers, Op Amps, comparators, multipliers, BJTs and FETs
C202.3 Understand how negative and positive feedback influence the behaviour of analog circuits
N
C202.4 Design VCVS, CCVS, VCCS, CCCS, and DC and SMPS voltage regulators
C202.5 Design analog filters
C203.6 Design waveform generators, and frequency followers

SC 3.1.2 - Tier II
3.1.2. CO-PO/PSOs matrices of courses selected in 3.1.1 (six matrices) (5)

Guidelines
 A. Explanation of table to be ascertained
20
 Mapping to be verified for at least two matrices
Subjective evaluation by the visiting team.
Explanation: Mapping COs to POs and PSOs
20
Tag COs with POs, PSOs, Cognitive Level, Knowledge Categories and number of sessions/hours
 The action verb used in a CO and its match with action verbs found, explicitly or implicitly, in POs
and PSOs forms the basis of mapping of COs to those POs/PSOs.
 If PSOs are written well COs of a course map generally to a single PSO.
 It is desirable to map a CO to one or two of the first five POs (disciplinary) and one of the
professional POs (PO6-PO12).
EL
 If a CO is mapped to too many POs, it can become difficult to conduct instruction and to
demonstrate the attainment of selected POs.
Sample: Analog Circuits and Systems - Credits: 3:0:1
Course Outcome POs/ CL KC Class Lab

PT
PSOs Sessions Sessions
(Hrs)
CO1 Understand the characteristics of linear PO1, PO10, U F, C 3

one-port and two-port signal processing PSO1
N
networks
CO2 Model one-port devices including R, L, C and PO1, PO10, U C 9 4

diodes, two-port networks, and active devices PSO1
including amplifiers, Op Amps, comparators,
-
multipliers, BJTs and FETs
CO3 Understand how negative and positive feedback PO1, PSO1 U C 4 4

influence the behaviour of analog circuits
E
CO4 Design VCVS, CCVS, VCCS, CCCS, and DC and PO3, PO4, Ap C, P, 10 4
SMPS voltage regulators PO5, PSO1 C&S, PC
AT
CO5 Design analog filters PO3, PO4, Ap C, P, 8 8

PO5, PSO1 C&S, PC
CO6 Design waveform generators, phase followers PO3, PO4, Ap C, P, 6 8

and frequency followers PO5, PSO1 C&S, PC
N
Total Hours of Instruction 40 28
CO-PO/PSO Matrix of a Course
 CO-PO matrices of courses selected in 3.1.1 (six matrices to be mentioned; one per semester
from 3rd to 8th semester) (5)

Note: Enter correlation levels 1, 2 or 3 as defined below: 1: Slight (Low) 2: Moderate (Medium) 3:
Substantial (High) “-”: If there is no correlation
 Similar table is to be prepared for PSOs
 Explanation of CO-PO/PSO tables to be ascertained (5)
The Structure of CO-PO Matrix for a Course
20
PO
Course C302
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
C302.1
C302.2
20
C302.3
C302.4
C302.5
C302.6
C302
EL
Making Entries in CO-PO Matrix
 The last row is important and it indicates the strength to which each PO is addressed by the entire
course.
PT
 It is expected to make entries into all the cells of matrix other than the last row, and software tool
at NBA computes the average of the entries in the column.
 There can be several ways of making entries in the cells
 Each entry can be made intuitively taking the features of CO statement and the cognitive
activities implied by the POs. As the entries in any column are likely to differ the average of a
N
column will not be an integer. It is difficult to get uniformity across all teachers of the institutions
using intuitive judgement.
 A justifiable objective method was proposed in M1 U20. That method will directly give you the last
row of the matrix. Entry in each column of the last row is repeated in all the relevant rows of the
-
same column. The entries in the last row of the matrix will become integers ‘-’, 1, 2, or 3 by the
software tool.
E
Sample CO-PO Matrix
PO
Course C302
AT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
C302.1 1 1 3 3 3 - - - - 1 - -
C302.2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
C302.3 1 1 3 3 3 - - - - 1 - -
N
C302.4 1 1 3 3 3 - - - - 1 - -
C302.5 1 1 3 3 3 - - - - 1 - -
C302.6 1 1 3 3 3 - - - - 1 - -
C302

CO-PSO Matrix
A separate matrix needs to be prepared for the correlation of CO and PSOs

Sample
Course C302 PSO
20
1 2 3 4
C302.1 3 - - -
C302.2 3 - - -
C302.3 3 - - -
C302.4 3 - - -
20
C302.5 3 - - -
C302.6 3 - - -
C302
Criterion 3.1.3 – Tier II
EL
3.1.3 Program level Course-PO/PSOs matrix of ALL courses including first year courses
Guidelines:
A. Explanation of tables to be ascertained (10)
A. Mapping to be verified for at least one course per year of study; program outcomes and program
PT
specific outcomes getting mapped with the core courses are also to be verified
Program-POs Articulation Matrix
POs
N
Course
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
C101 2 - 1 1 - - - - - - - -
... ... ...

-
C302 1 1 3 3 3 - - - - 1 - -
... ... ...
C806 (Project) - 2 - 1 - 2 2 1 - 3 1 3
E
Program – PSOs Articulation Matrix

AT
PSOs
Course
1 2 3 4
C101 1 1 1 1
... ... ...

N
C302 3 - - -
... ... ...
C806 (Project) 2 2 2 1

Sub-Criterion 3.1- Tier I
 Tier I institutions are responsible for designing their own curricula, the Department is responsible
writing COs of all courses, and establishing the correlation between COs and PO/PSOs.
 This correlation is to be formalized by the BOS of the Department and approved by the Academic
Council of the Institution.
20
Criterion 3.1 - Tier I
3.1 Establish the correlation between the courses and the POs & PSOs (25)
Guidelines
20
 Besides slight change in the terminology, Guidelines A, C and D are the same as applicable to Tier
II institutions.
EL
C3.1 Tier 1: Exhibit A…..

 COs need to be written for all courses of the program
 While NBA does not mandate use of Revised Bloom Taxonomy framework for writing COs, it has
PT
been the de facto accepted framework.
 In this framework, COs are written starting with an Action Verb, followed by Knowledge
Elements, Conditions (optional) and Criteria (optional).
Exhibit
N
CO statements for at least one course each from 2nd, 3rd and final year of study Subjective
evaluation of the appropriateness of CO statements by the visiting team.
C3.1 Tier 1: Exhibit B…….

-

 Normally syllabus is presented as a list of topics.
 There should be complete correspondence between CO and the list of topics besides COs
E
indicating the depth to which is topic is addressed.

Exhibit
AT
 A brief explanation for each course on how CO are embedded in the syllabus.
C3.1 Tier 1: Exhibit C…….

N
 Explain the basis for considering a CO to be addressing a PO or a PSO.

 The course articulation matrix is to be prepared as indicated in Slides 19 and 20
Exhibit
CO-PO and CO-PSO matrices of at least two courses

C3.1 Tier 1: Exhibit D…….

 Explain the basis of determining the strength to which a CO addresses a given PO/PSO.
20
 Explain the basis of determining the Course-PO articulation row was worked out.
Exhibits
Mapping for at least one course per year of study; program outcomes and program specific outcomes
getting mapped with the core courses (Slides 21 and 22)
20
M3 U14
 Understand how to present the attainment of COs, POs and PSOs as per NBA Criteria 3.2 and 3.3
for Tier II and Tier I institutions
EL
PT
N
-
E
AT
N

M3 U14: NBA Criterion 3: Course Outcomes and Program Outcomes -2
Recap
 Understood the role and method of preparing COs, CO-PO matrices and CO-PSO matrices for
courses and present them as per NBA Criterion 3.1
20
M3 U14 Outcome
 Understand how to compute the attainment of COs, POs, and PSOs and present them as per NBA
Criteria 3.2 and 3.3.
CO Attainment and Quality Loop
20
EL
PT
N
-
Sub-Criterion 3.2
E
3.2 Attainment of Course Outcomes (50 – Tier II and 75 – Tier I)

3.2.1 Describe the assessment processes used to gather the data upon which the evaluation of
Course Outcome is based (10 – Tier II and Tier I)
AT
3.2.2 Record the attainment of Course Outcomes of all courses with respect to set attainment levels
(40 – Tier II and 65 – Tier I)
Sub-Criterion 3.2.1
3.2.1 Describe the assessment processes used to gather the data upon which the evaluation of
N
Course Outcome is based

Guidelines
A. List of assessment processes (2)
B. The quality /relevance of assessment processes & tools used (8)

A. & B. Evidence for appropriate assessment processes including data collection, verification,
analysis, decision making
Sub-Criterion 3.2.1 - Guidelines
20
A. The list of Assessment Processes (2)
 Assessment processes are mostly decided by the University in Tier II institutions. Tier I Institutes
decide themselves.
Examples
 Elements of CIE
20
 Elements of SEE
 Assessment Plan
B. The quality /relevance of assessment processes & tools used (8)
 Explanation of the choice of assessment processes in terms of their relevance.
 Explanation of why the Department considers the tools chosen determine the quality of assessment.

EL
How well the assessment processes and tools address COs at relevant cognitive levels.
 Quality of assessment plan: the number, variety and frequency of assessment instruments.
Broad guidelines can be formulated at the institute level.
Sub-Criterion 3.2.1 - Exhibits/Context to be Observed/Assessed

PT
A.& B. Evidence for appropriate assessment processes including data collection, verification, analysis,
decision making.
 Analysis of tagging items for cognitive levels and their weightages in CIE and SEE instruments of
sample courses for all semesters.
N
 Sample student responses across all levels and the quality of evaluation.
 Committee evaluates these documents subjectively
Sub-Criterion 3.2.2
-
Record the attainment of Course Outcomes of all courses with respect to set attainment levels (40 –
Tier II and 65 – Tier I)
Guidelines
E
A. Verify the attainment levels as per the benchmark set for all courses
A. Methodology to define set levels and its compliance; data collection, verification, analysis and
AT
decision making; details for one course per year of study to be verified
Sub-Criterion - 3.2.2 Guidelines
A. Verify the attainment levels as per the benchmark set for all courses.

N
Computation of attainment levels of COs of all courses as per the stated assessment processes.
 Computation of attainment gaps of all COs of all courses.
 Plan for closing the attainment gaps or enhancing the targets with explanations.
An example to illustrate the above three processes would be helpful. (As per details presented in the
M1 U19)

Sub-Criterion 3.2.2 - Exhibits/Context to be Observed/Assessed
A. Methodology to define set levels and its compliance; data collection, verification, analysis and
decision making; details for one course per year of study to be verified
 The visiting committee will assess, with regard to data collection, verification, analysis and
decision making, one course per year of the program as per the process defined by the
20
Department and awards marks out of 40 for Tier II institution and out of 65 for Tier I institution.
Sub-Criterion 3.3
3.3. Attainment of Program Outcomes and Program Specific Outcomes (50 – Tier II and 75 – Tier I)
3.3.1 Describe assessment tools and processes used for assessing the attainment of each of the POs
20
& PSOs (10 – Tier II and 10 – Tier I)
3.3.2 Provide results of evaluation of each PO & PSO (40 – Tier II and 65 – Tier I)
PO/PSO Attainment and Quality Loop
EL
PT
N
Computing PO/PSO Attainment
 The main purpose of computing PO/PSO attainment is to enable us to plan for continuous
improvement.
-
 The PO/PSO attainment should be computed from direct and indirect methods.
 Computing PO/PSO attainment from COs will depend on the student performance and the
manner of determining the mapping strength.
E
 One method of computing PO/PSO attainment from COs was presented in the Module 1 of NATE.
 The method of computation should be decided at the Institute level and followed by all
AT
Departments.
Sub-Criterion 3.3.1
Guidelines: (Same for Tier II and Tier I Institutions)

A. List of assessment tools & processes (5)
N
B. The quality/relevance of assessment tools/processes used (5)

A. & B. Appropriate attainment level and documentary evidences; details for POs & PSOs attainment
from core courses to be verified. Also at least two POs & two PSOs attainment levels shall be verified.

Sub-Criterion 3.3.1 – Guidelines
A. List of assessment tools & processes (5)

Assessment Tools (periodicity)
 Attainment of COs
 Surveys
20
 Results of evaluation of co-curricular and extra-curricular activities using rubrics
Assessment Processes
 Method for identifying the POs and PSOs addressed by COs of a course
 Method of determining the strength to which a PO/PSO is addressed by a course
20
 Method of setting the targets for POs and PSOs
 Percentage weightage to Indirect Assessment of POs/PSOs
 Method of computing PO/PSO attainment
 Plan for reducing the PO/PSO attainment gaps and for enhancement of targets where necessary.
B. The quality/relevance of assessment tools/processes used (5)
 Explanation of the choice of PO/PSO assessment processes in terms of their relevance.
EL
 Explanation of why the Department considers the tools chosen determine the quality of PO/PSO
assessment.
 Illustration with an example
The choice of processes should be common across all the Departments of an Institution
PT
Sub-Criterion 3.3.1 – Exhibits/Context to be Observed/Assessed
from core courses to be verified. Also at least two POs & two PSOs attainment levels shall be verified
N
The visiting committee will verify the computation of attainment of two POs and PSOs as per the
processes chosen by the Department
Sub-Criterion 3.3.2
3.3.2 Provide results of evaluation of each PO & PSO (40 for Tier II and 65 for Tier 1)
-
Guidelines
A. Verification of documents, results and level of attainment of each PO/PSO (24 for Tier II and 50 for
Tier 1)
E
B. Overall levels of attainment (16 for Tier II and 15 for Tier I)

AT
from core courses to be verified. Also at least two POs & two PSOs attainment levels shall be verified
Sub-Criterion 3.3.2 – Guidelines
A. Verification of documents, results and level of attainment of each PO/PSO (24 for Tier II and 50 for
N
Tier 1)
Documents that would be verified by the visiting committee
 Method of computing attainment of POs and PSOs.
 Attainment of PO/PSOs by each course/core activity.

 Computing the level of attainment of POs and PSOs at the program level for two batches.
B. Overall levels of attainment
 Analysis of overall levels of attainments of POs and PSOs need to be prepared by the Department.
 If the year-on-year attainments are reducing the Department should be able to explain well (The
decrease in the quality of students should never be used as a reason!)
20
Sub-Criterion 3.3.2 – Exhibits/Context to be Observed/Assessed
from core courses to be verified. Also at least two POs & two PSOs attainment levels shall be verified.
 Visiting committee will inspect all the documentation related to computation of attainment of POs
20
and PSOs.
 The committee will verify the calculations related to computation of two selected POs and two
PSOs.
M3 U15 Outcome
 Understand the indicators for student performance/professional activities.
EL
PT
N
-
E
AT
N

M3 U15: Criterion 4: Students’ Performance
Recap
 Understood how to compute the attainment of COs, POs, and PSOs and present them as per NBA
Criteria 3.2 and 3.3.
20
M3 U15: Outcome
 Understand how to measure the performance and professional activities of students using
metrics provided by NBA (Criterion 4)
Criterion 4
20
It is related to the performance and professional activities of students including
 Enrollment
 Success ratio
 Performance in second and third years
 Placement, Higher studies and Entrepreneurship
EL
 Professional activities
Most of the sub-criteria are data or records based and there is not much evaluation that is subjective.
Criterion 4: Sub-Criteria Tier II
4. Students’ Performance (150)

PT
4.1 Enrolment Ratio (20)
4.2 Success Rate in the stipulated period of the program (40)
4.3 Academic Performance in Third Year (15)
4.4 Academic Performance in Second Year (15)
N
4.5 Placement, Higher studies and Entrepreneurship (40)

4.6 Professional Activities (20)
Criterion 4: Sub-Criteria Tier I
4. Students’ Performance (100)

-
4.1 Enrolment Ratio (20)

4.2 Success Rate in the stipulated period of the program (20)
E
4.3 Academic Performance in Second Year (10)

4.4 Placement, Higher studies and Entrepreneurship (30)
4.5 Professional Activities (20)
AT
Sub-Criterion 4.1 Enrolment Ratio (20 - Tier II)
Evaluation Guidelines
A. ≥ 90% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis during the previous three
academic years starting from current academic year (20)
N
B. ≥ 80% and < 90% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis during the previous
three academic years starting from current academic year (18)
C. ≥ 70% and < 80% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis during the previous

D. ≥ 60% and < 70% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis during the previous
E. ≥ 50% and < 60% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis during the previous
F. Otherwise ‘0’.
20
Sub-Criterion 4.1 Enrolment Ratio (20 - Tier I)
A. ≥90% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis during the previous three
academic years starting from current academic year (20)
20
B. ≥80% and < 90% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis during the previous
C. ≥70% and < 80% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis during the previous
D. ≥60% and < 70% and students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis during the
previous three academic years (14)
EL
E. Otherwise ‘0’.
Sub-Criterion 4.1 Exhibits/Context to be Observed/Assessed
 A. B. & C. Data to be verified for each of the assessment years for both Tier II and Tier I Institutes
PT
 Visiting committee verifies the data presented by the Department
Sub-Criterion 4.2.1 Success Rate Without Backlogs
4.2 Success Rate in the stipulated period of the program (40 – Tier II and 20 – Tier I)
4.2.1 Success rate without backlogs in any Semester/Year of study. Without Backlog means no
N
compartment or failures in any Semester/Year of study (25 – Tier II and 15 – Tier I)

 SI (Success Index)= (Number of students who graduated from the program without
backlog)/(Number of students admitted in the first year of that batch and actually admitted in
-
2nd year via lateral entry and separate division, if applicable)

 Average SI = Mean of success index (SI) for past three batches
 Success rate without backlogs in any year of study=25 × Average SI (Tier II)
E
 Success rate without backlogs in any year of study=15 × Average SI (Tier-I)
Sub-Criterion 4.2.1 Exhibits/Context to be Observed/Assessed

AT
 Data to be verified for each of the assessment years

Visiting committee verifies the data presented by the Department
Sub-Criterion 4.2.2 Success Rate in Stipulated Period

N
4.2.2 Success rate in stipulated period (actual duration of the program) [Total of with backlog +
without backlog] (15 - Tier II and 5 - Tier I)
 SI= (Number of students who graduated from the program in the stipulated period of course

duration)/(Number of students admitted in the first year of that batch and actually admitted in
2nd year via lateral entry and separate division, if applicable)
 Average SI = mean of success index (SI) for past three batches
 Success rate = 15 × Average SI (Tier II)
 Success rate = 5 × Average SI (Tier I)
20
Sub-Criterion 4.2.2 Exhibits/Context to be Observed/Assessed
 Data to be verified for each of the assessment years

Note: if 100% students clear without any backlog then also total marks scored will be 40 as both
4.2.1 & 4.2.2 will be applicable simultaneously (Tier II)
20
Note: if 100% students clear without any backlog then also total marks scored will be 20 as both
4.2.1 & 4.2.2 will be applicable simultaneously (Tier I)
Sub-Criterion 4.3 Academic Performance in Third Year (15 – Tier II)
EL
 Academic Performance = 1.5 × Average API (Academic Performance Index)
 API = [(Mean of 3rd Year Grade Point Average of all successful Students on a 10-point scale) or
(Mean of the percentage of marks of all successful students in Third Year/10)] x (successful
students/number of students appeared in the examination)
PT
 Successful students are those who are permitted to proceed to the final year (as per the
regulations in force)
 Data to be verified for at least one of the assessment years
N
Sub-Criterion 4.4 Academic Performance in Second Year (15 – Tier II)
 Academic Performance = 1.5 × Average API (Academic Performance Index)
-
 API = [(Mean of 2nd Year Grade Point Average of all successful Students on a 10-point scale) or
(Mean of the percentage of marks of all successful students in Second Year/10)] x (successful
E

 Successful students are those who are permitted to proceed to the third year (as per the
AT
Sub-Criterion 4.3 Academic Performance in Second Year (10-Tier I)

N
 Academic Performance = Average API (Academic Performance Index)
 API = [(Mean of 2nd Year Grade Point Average of all successful Students on a 10-point scale) or
(Mean of the percentage of marks of all successful students in Second Year/10)] x (successful

 Successful students are those who are permitted to proceed to the third year (as per the
20
Sub-Criterion 4.5 Placement, Higher Studies and Entrepreneurship (40 – Tier II)
 Assessment Points = 40 × average of three years of [ (x + y + z)/N] where,
20
x = Number of students placed in companies or Government sector through on/off campus
recruitment
y = Number of students admitted to higher studies with valid qualifying
scores (GATE or equivalent State or National level tests, GRE, GMAT etc.)
z = No. of students turned entrepreneur in engineering/technology
N = Total number of final year students
EL
Sub-Criterion 4.4 Placement, Higher Studies and Entrepreneurship (30 – Tier I)

PT
 Assessment Points = 30 × average of three years of [ (x + y + z)/N] where,
x = Number of students placed in companies or Government sector through on/off campus
recruitment
N
y = Number of students admitted to higher studies with valid qualifying scores (GATE or equivalent
State or National level tests, GRE, GMAT etc.)
z = No. of students turned entrepreneur in engineering/technology
-
N = Total number of final year students

E
Placement, Higher Studies and Entrepreneurship

AT
 Proof of placement is not in terms of offer letters. Evidence of students joining the organization
must be available with the Institute/Department.
 The Departments should have evidence of students joining higher education programs and keep
copies of the Gate/GRE scores.
N
 The Department should have evidence of students becoming entrepreneurs (visiting cards,
communication from the company’s letterhead, etc.).
Sub-Criterion 4.6 Professional Activities (20-Tier II)
4.5 Professional Activities of Tier I has the same sub-criteria and weightages (20-Tier I)

4.6.1 (4.5.1 for Tier I) Professional societies / chapters and organizing engineering events (5)
A. Availability & activities of professional societies/chapters (3)
B. Number, quality of engineering events (organized at institute) (2)
(Level - Institute/State/National/International)
20
 Visiting committee verifies the documentation presented by the Department
4.6.2 (4.5.2 for Tier I) Publication of technical magazines, newsletters, etc. (5)
A. Quality & Relevance of the contents and Print Material (3)
20
B. Participation of Students from the program (2)
A. Documentary evidence
B. Documentary evidence - Students participation (also to be confirmed during interaction with the
students)
Visiting committee verifies the documentation presented by the Department
EL
4.6.3 (4.5.3 for Tier I) Participation in inter-institute events by students of the program of study (at
other institutions) (10)
A. Events within the state (2)
PT
B. Events outside the state (3)
C. Prizes/awards received in such events (5)
Maintain records of all events and awards
N
 A. B. & C. Quality of events and documentary evidence

Visiting committee verifies the documentation presented by the Department
Professional Activities: Good Practices

 The Institute should facilitate creation of student chapters of professional societies. It should
-
administratively and financially support the activities of such student chapters.

 The engineering activities under these student chapters can include expert lectures, quizzes,
project competitions etc.
E
 The Department should encourage the students to bring out a technical news latter, different
from the Annual Magazine normally brought out at the Institute level. The editorial team for this
AT
News Letter must consist of students only. A faculty member can act as a mentor. The periodicity
may be twice a semester.
 Institute must administratively and financially support student participation in inter-institute
activities like conferences, workshops and competitions.
N
 Institute must encourage, through appropriate policy measures, students to publish papers.
M3 U16 Outcome
 Understand the indicators for Faculty Information and Contributions (Criterion 5 of SAR)

M3 U16: Criterion 5: Faculty Information and Contributions
Recap
 Understood how to measure performance and professional activities of students using metrics
provided by NBA (Criterion 4)
20
M3 U16: Outcome
 Understand the indicators for Faculty Information and Contributions (Criterion 5)
Criterion 5. Faculty Information and Contributions (Tier II)
Sub-Criterion Marks
20
5.1 Student-Faculty Ratio (SFR) 20
5.2 Faculty Cadre Proportion 25
5.3 Faculty Qualification 25
5.4 Faculty Retention 25
5.5 Innovations by the Faculty in Teaching and Learning 20
EL
5.6 Faculty as participants in Faculty development /training activities /STTPs 15
5.7 Research and Development 30
5.8 Faculty Performance Appraisal and Development System (FPADS) 30

PT
5.9 Visiting/Adjunct/Emeritus Faculty etc. 10
Criterion 5. Faculty Information and Contributions (Tier I)
Sub-Criterion Marks
5.1 Student-Faculty Ratio (SFR) 20

N
5.2 Faculty Cadre Proportion 20
5.3 Faculty Qualification 20

-
5.4 Faculty Retention 10
5.5 Faculty competencies in correlation to Program Specific Criteria 10

E
5.6 Innovations by the Faculty in Teaching and Learning 10
5.7 Faculty as participants in Faculty development/ training activities /STTPs 15

AT
5.8 Research and Development 75
5.9 Faculty Performance Appraisal and Development System (FPADS) 10
5.10 Visiting/Adjunct/Emeritus Faculty etc. 10

N
Criterion 5
 NBA recognizes the key role of faculty in facilitating learning
 There are several dimensions to an effective teacher:
o qualification

o relationship with the institution
o continuing concern with the teaching-learning processes
o engaging in knowledge production (R&D)
o continuous learning
 Good instructional situation is needed for teachers to be effective and students to learn well.
20
Norms
 Academic year is considered from July to June.
 If the SAR is submitted before 30th September, then the CAY shall be the previous academic year
and if the SAR is submitted after 30th September, then the CAY shall be the running academic
20
year for the purpose of data consideration and calculations.
 CAY: Current Academic Year
 CAYm1: Current Academic Year minus 1 = Current Assessment Year
 CAYm2: Current Academic Year minus 2 = Current Assessment Year minus1
Sub-Criterion 5.1 Student-Faculty Ratio (SFR) (20- T I and T II)
EL
 Marks to be given proportionally from a maximum of 20 to a minimum of 10 for average SFR
between 15:1 to 25:1, and zero for average SFR higher than 25:1.
o  15 - 20 Marks
PT
o  17 - 18 Marks
o  19 - 16 Marks
o  21 - 14 Marks
o  23 - 12 Marks
N
o  25 - 10 Marks
o > 25 - 0 Marks
 25:1 for the Accreditation of 3 years and 15:1 for the Accreditation of 6 years.

-
 SFR is to be verified considering the faculty of the entire department.

 No. of Regular faculty calculation considering Regular faculty definition; Faculty appointment
E
letters, time table, subject allocation file, salary statements.

 No. of students calculation as mentioned in the SAR (as per table under criterion 5.1)

AT
Faculty Qualification as per AICTE guidelines shall only be counted

Note: Minimum 75% should be Regular faculty and the remaining can be Contractual Faculty as per
AICTE norms and standards.
 The contractual faculty (doing away with the terminology of visiting/adjunct faculty, whatsoever)
who have taught for 2 consecutive semesters in the corresponding academic year on full time
N
basis shall be considered for the purpose of calculation in the Student Faculty Ratio
 The faculty to be counted as regular faculty in the respective year, if the faculty has joined before
or on 31st August of the same year and continued till 30th April of the subsequent year.
 The PhD faculty count requirement shall be calculated on the pro-rata basis – with at least 75%

to be part of the regular faculty, and the remaining being part of the contractual faculty, if any.
 The available and required number of PhD. in the department would be calculated on the average
basis for the previous two academic years including the current academic year.
 The available and required number of PhDs in the department shall be truncated to its nearest
lower integer.
20
 If a member of regular or contractual faculty is designated as lecturer, even though holding an
MTech degree, the same will not be counted against the faculty requirements.
Sub-Criterion 5.2 Faculty Cadre Proportion (25 – Tier II and 20- Tier I)
20
AF – Available Faculty RF – Required Faculty
Tier II
 AF1   0.6  AF2   0.4  AF3  

 Cadre Proportion Marks =      12.5
 RF1   RF2   RF3  
If AF1 = AF2= 0 then zero marks
EL
 Maximum marks to be limited if it exceeds 25
Tier I
 AF1   0.6  AF2   0.4  AF3  

 Cadre Proportion Marks =      10
 RF1   RF2   RF3  
PT
If AF1 = AF2= 0 then zero marks
Maximum marks to be limited if it exceeds 20
 Faculty Qualification and experience required for cadre posts shall only be considered as per
N
AICTE norms/guidelines
 Cadre wise No. of faculty available; Faculty qualification and experience and eligibility;
Appointment/Promotion orders
 Cadre wise no. of faculty required as per AICTE guidelines (refer calculation in SAR)
-
Sub-Criterion 5.3. Faculty Qualification (25 – Tier II and 20- Tier I)
E
FQ = 2.5 x [{10X + 4Y}/F] (Tier II)

FQ = 2.0 x [{10X + 4Y}/F] (Tier I)
AT
where X is no. of faculty with Ph.D.; Y is no. of faculty with M.Tech.; F is no. of faculty required to
comply 1:20 Faculty Student ratio
 Documentary evidence – Faculty Qualification
N
Sub-Criterion 5.4 Faculty Retention (25 – Tier II, 10-Tier I)
A. 90% of required Faculties retained during the period of assessment keeping CAYm2 as base year
(25 – TII and 10 – TI)

B. 75% of required Faculties retained during the period of assessment keeping CAYm2 as base year
(20 – TII and 08 – TI)
C. 60% of required Faculties retained during the period of assessment keeping CAYm2 as base year
(15 – TII and 06 – TI)
D. 50% of required Faculties retained during the period of assessment keeping CAYm2 as base year
20
(10 – TII and 04 – TI)
E. Otherwise (0)
Sub-Criterion 5.4 Exhibits/Context to be Observed/Assessed: (Tier II and Tier I)

 Faculty date of joining; at least three month (July-April-May) salary statement for each of the
20
assessment years.
Sub-Criterion 5.5 Innovations by the Faculty in Teaching and Learning (20 - Tier II and10 – Tier I as
per Cr. 5.6)
A. The work must be made available on Institute Website (4 – TII and 2-TI)
B. The work must be available for peer review and critique (4 – TII and 2-TI)
EL
C. The work must be reproducible and developed further by other scholars (2 – TII and 2-TI)
D. Statement of clear goals, use of appropriate methods, significance of results, effective
presentation and reflective critique (10 – TII and 4-TI)
In addition to following these guidelines, the faculty should find a method of determining the impact
PT
of their innovation and record the same.
Sub-Criterion 5.5 Exhibits/Context to be Observed/Assessed (Tier II and Cr. 5.6 of Tier I)
A. Availability on Institute website; awareness among faculty and students of the department
B. Self -explanatory
N
C. Self -explanatory
D. Innovations that contribute to the improvement of student learning, typically include use of ICT,
instruction delivery, instructional methods, assessment, evaluation etc.
-
SC 5.5 Faculty competencies in correlation to Program Specific Criteria (10 – Tier I)

A. Specialization
E
B. Research Publications
C. Course Developments
D. Other relevant points
AT
Department can create a matrix of competencies of its faculty members in format selected by the
Institute.
Subjective evaluation by the visiting team
N
SC 5.6 Faculty as participants in Faculty development /training activities/ STTPs (15-Tier II & Tier I
Cr. 5.7)
 For each year: Assessment = 3 × Sum/0.5RF

 Average assessment over last three years starting from CAYm1 (Marks limited to 15)
 Relevance of the training/development programme
 No. of days; No. of faculty
The Institute must seek a report from the faculty who participated in the FDPs and training programs
20
on knowledge and methods they learnt and propose to use. The format of the report can be decided
at the Institute level.
SC 5.7 Research and Development (Cr. 5.8 -Tier I)
Tier II – 30 Marks
20
5.7.1 Academic Research 10
5.7.2 Sponsored Research 05
5.7.3 Development Activities 10
5.7.4 Consultancy (From Industry) 05
Tier I – 75 Marks
5.8.1 Academic Research 20
EL
5.8.2 Sponsored Research 20
5.8.3 Development Activities 15
5.8.4 Consultancy (From Industry) 20
SC 5.7.1 Academic Research (Cr. 5.8.1 for TI)

PT
A. Number of quality publications in refereed/SCI Journals, citations, Books/Book Chapters etc. (6 –
TII and 15 –Tier I))
B. PhDs guided /PhDs awarded during the assessment period while working in the institute (4 – TII
N
and 5 - TI)
A. Quality of publications; publications copy
B. Documentary evidence
-
SC 5.7.2 Sponsored Research (05-Tier II)

Funded research from outside; Cumulative during CAYm1, CAYm2 and CAYm3
E
 Amount > 20 Lakh – 5 Marks

 Amount ≥ 16 Lakh and  20 Lakh – 4 Marks
AT
 Amount ≥ 12 Lakh and < 16 Lakh – 3 Marks

 Amount ≥ 4 Lakh and < 8 Lakh – 1 Mark
 Amount < 4 Lakh – 0 Mark
N
SC 5.8.2 Sponsored Research (20 – Tier I)

Funded research from outside; Cumulative during CAYm1, CAYm2 and CAYm3
 Amount > 50 Lakh – 20 Marks,

 Amount >40 and < 50 Lakh – 15 Marks,
 Amount < 15 Lakh – 0 Marks
SC 5.7.2 Exhibits/Context to be Observed/ Assessed (Tier II and 5.8.2 of Tier I)
20
Documentary Evidence:
 Funding agency
 Amount
 Duration
20
 Research progress
 Outcome
SC 5.7.3 Development Activities (Cr. 5.8.3 of Tier I)
Tier II – 10 Marks and Tier I – 15 Marks

EL
A. Product Development
B. Research laboratories
C. Instructional materials
D. Working models/charts/monograms etc.
PT
The Department should make a list of the things developed and preferably create some posters.
 Self explanatory
SC 5.7.4 Consultancy (From Industry) (5 – Tier II)

N
Consultancy; (Cumulative during CAYm1, CAYm2 and CAYm3)
 Amount > 10 Lakh – 5 Marks
 Amount ≥ 8 Lakh and  10 Lakh – 4 Marks
-

E
 Amount ≥ 2 Lakh and < 4 Lakh – 1 Mark

AT
SC 5.8.4 Consultancy (From Industry) (20 – Tier I)

Consultancy; Cumulative during CAYm1, CAYm2 and CAYm3
 Amount >10 Lakh – 20 Marks,
 Amount <10 and > 8 Lakh – 15 Marks,
N
 Amount < 8 and > 6 Lakh – 10 Marks,


SC 5.7.4 Exhibits/Context to be Observed/ Assessed (Tier II and Cr. 5.8.4 - Tier I)
Documentary Evidence:
 Funding agency
 Amount
 Duration
20
 Research progress
 Outcome
SC 5.8. Faculty Performance Appraisal & Development System (FPADS)
20
Tier II – 30 Marks and Tier I – 10 Marks (Cr. 5.9)
A. A well-defined performance appraisal and development system instituted for all the assessment
years (10)
B. Its implementation and effectiveness (20)
Department should include the steps it has taken to develop the competencies of its faculty.
EL
A. Notified performance appraisal and development system; Appraisal Parameters; Awareness
B. Implementation, Transparency and Effectiveness
SC 5.9 Visiting/Adjunct/ Emeritus Faculty etc. (10 - Tier II)

PT
Tier II – 10 Marks and Tier I -10 Marks (Cr. 5.10)
 Provision of Visiting /Adjunct/Emeritus faculty etc.(1)
 Minimum 50 hours per year interaction (per year to obtain three marks : 3 x 3 = 9)
N
Department should prepare a report on the activities and contributions made by these faculty.
 Documentary evidence
M3 U17: Outcome
-
 Understand the indicators for facilities and technical support (Criterion 6)

E
AT
N

NATE NBA Module 3 - Week11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATE NBA Module 3 - Week11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATE NBA Module 3 - Week11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NBA Accreditation and Teaching-Learning in Engineering (NATE)

N J Rao and K Rajanikanth

Module 3: Instruction and Accreditation

Criterion 2: Program Curriculum and Teaching–Learning Processes

Sub-Criterion Tier I Tier II

2.1 Program Curriculum 30 20

2.2 Teaching-Learning Processes 70 100

TOTAL 100 120

Sub-Criterion 2.1: Program Curriculum Tier I Institute

2.1.1 State the process for designing the program curriculum 10

2.1.2 Structure of the Curriculum 5

2.1.3 State the components of the curriculum 5

NATE-Module 3-Week-11 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 1

State the process for designing the program curriculum.

Sub-Criteria 2.1.2 and 2.1.3

Structure of the Curriculum

Course Course Total Number of Contact Hours Credits

# Seminars, Project Works may be considered as practical

Program curriculum grouping based on course components

Course Component Curriculum Content (% of total Total number of Total number

number of credits of the program) contact hours of credits

Humanities and Social Sciences

NATE-Module 3-Week-11 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 2

Total number of credits

Sub-Criterion 2.1: Program Curriculum Tier II Institute

NATE-Module 3-Week-11 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 3

Exhibits/Context to be Observed/Assessed (continued):

NATE-Module 3-Week-11 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 4

Exhibits/Context to be Observed/Assessed (continued):

 Understand the SAR requirements related to the Teaching–Learning Processes.

NATE-Module 3-Week-11 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 5

 Understood the SAR requirements related to Program Curriculum. (Criterion 2 of SAR –

 Understand the SAR requirements related to Teaching-Learning Processes. (Criterion 2 of SAR –

Sub-Criterion 2.2 Teaching-Learning Processes

 It is also concerned with:

Evaluation Guideline Tier I Tier II

2.2.1 Describe the Process followed to improve quality of Teaching Learning

2.2.4 Initiatives related to industry interaction

* Quality of End semester examination is not relevant for Tier II institutes.

NATE-Module 3-Week-11 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 6

Describe the Process followed to improve quality of Teaching - Learning

A. Describe the Process followed to improve quality of Teaching - Learning

Documentary evidence to support implementation of pedagogical initiatives such as real-life

NATE-Module 3-Week-11 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 7

D. Quality of classroom teaching

G. Student feedback of teaching learning process and actions taken

Evaluation Guideline Tier I Tier II

B. Process to ensure questions from outcomes/learning levels perspective 2 5

NATE-Module 3-Week-11 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 8

D. Quality of Assignment and its relevance to COs 5 5

B. Process to ensure questions from outcomes/learning levels perspective

o QP scrutiny committee must be established. What should be its composition?

C. Evidence of COs coverage in class test / mid-term tests

Mapping of questions with the Course outcomes

o Should the tags be exposed to the students?

D. Quality of Assignment and its relevance to COs

Assignments to promote self-learning, survey of contents from multiple sources, assignment

NATE-Module 3-Week-11 N J Rao & K Rajanikanth 9