How to Calculate

Attainment of CO and PO

Prof (Dr.) J.N.Jha

Principal, MIT Muzaffarpur
Email: [email protected]
Engineering Programs

 Graduates of Engineering Programs in India are required

 To attain the Program Outcomes (POs) identified by the National Board of

Accreditation (NBA)

 To attain Program Specific Outcomes (PSOs) identified by the University or

the Department offering the Program.

 POs and PSOs are to attained

 through courses, projects, co-curricular and extra-curricular activities (in

which performance of the students is evaluated).
Courses

 Courses are broadly classified

 Core courses and Electives.
 Core courses are Classified
 Engineering/Engineering Science, and Basic Sciences / Humanities / Social
Sciences /Management
 POs and PSOs are to be attained
 through core courses, project and activities
(in which all students Participate- Elective will not be considered).
 Courses constitute the dominant part of any engineering program.
 Students learn well

Course Outcome
 when they are clear about what they should be able to do at the end of a course
(Course Outcomes)

 Assessment is in alignment with what they are expected to do (Assessment in

alignment with Course Outcomes)

 Instructional activities are designed and conducted to facilitate them to acquire

and demonstrate what they are expected to do
(Alignment among Instruction, Assessment and Course Outcomes)
What are Course Outcomes?

 Course Outcomes (COs): What the student should be able to do at the end
of a course

 It is an effective ability, including attributes, skills and knowledge to

successfully carry out the identified activity

 Most important aspect of a CO: Should be observable and measurable

Structure of a CO statement

 Action: Represents a cognitive/ affective/ psychomotor activity the learner should

perform. An action is indicated by an action verb, occasionally two, representing
the concerned cognitive process(es).
 Cognitive Process (Action Verb): Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze,
Evaluate, Create
 Knowledge: Represents the specific knowledge from any one or more of the eight
knowledge categories
 Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, Metacognitive, Fundamental Design Principles,
Criteria & Specifications, Practical Constraints, Design instrumentalities
 Condition: Represents the process the learner is expected to follow or the
condition under which to perform the action (This is an optional element of CO)
 Criteria: Represent the parameters that characterize the acceptability levels of
performing the action (This is an optional element of CO)
Two Action Verbs

 Some times it becomes equally important for a student to perform two

cognitive processes/sub-processes on given knowledge elements.
 Only in such cases, two action verbs are used in a CO statement-Don’t
combine two COs into one
Example
 Draw Bode plots for the given dynamic system and determine the gain and
phase margins
 Drawing and determining are equally important and both processes are
related to the same knowledge elements of Bode plots
Sample 1- CO statement

 Calculate major and minor losses associated with fluid flow in piping
networks
 Action: Calculate (Apply)
 Knowledge: major and minor losses associated with fluid flow in piping
networks (Conceptual and Procedural)
 Condition: None
 Criteria: None
Sample 2- CO statement

 Determine the dynamic unbalanced conditions of a given mechanical

system of rigid bodies subjected to force and acceleration
 Action: Determine (Apply)
 Knowledge: Dynamic unbalanced conditions (Conceptual and
Procedural)
 Condition: given mechanical system of rigid bodies subjected to force and
acceleration
 Criterion: None
Sample 3- CO statement

 Understand the effect of all the parameters in voltage controlled oscillators

through simulation using TINATI.
 Action: Understand
 Knowledge: effect of all the parameters in voltage controlled oscillators
(Conceptual)
 Condition: using simulation using TINATI
 Criterion: None
Sample 4- CO statement

 Determine the root of the given equation, accurate to second decimal

place, using Newton-Raphson method
 Action: Determine (Apply)
 Knowledge: root of the given equation (Conceptual and Procedural)
 Condition: using Newton-Raphson method
 Criterion: accurate to second decimal place
Number of COs for a Course

 Too small a number of COs do not capture the course in sufficient detail
and may not serve instruction design that well.
 Too many COs make all the processes related to assessment design and
computation of attainment of COs messy and demanding.
 A 3:0:0, 3:1:0 and 3:0:1 courses should have about 6 course outcomes.
 The number of COs of courses carrying different number of credits can be
suitably adjusted
Dos and Don’ts

 Use only one action verb

 Do not use words including ‘like’, ‘such as’, ‘different’, ‘various’ ‘etc.’ with
respect to knowledge elements. Enumerate all the relevant knowledge
elements.
 Put in effort to make the CO statement as detailed as possible, and
measurable.
 Do not make it either too abstract or too specific
Check List

 Does the CO begin with an action verb?

 Is the CO stated in terms of student performance (rather than teacher
performance or course content to be covered)?
 Is the CO stated as a learning product rather than as a learning process?
 Is the CO stated at the proper level of generality, and relatively
independent of other COs?
 Is the CO attainable in the given context (students’ background,
prerequisite competences, facilities, time available and so on)?
Acceptability of COs

 Students will execute mini projects

 Instructional activities are designed to facilitate the attainment of COs by
learners, but themselves are not COs
 Have the concepts of compensators and controllers (P, PD, PI, PID)
 COs are competencies / behaviors that can be demonstrated; not
descriptions of internal changes in the students (though these are
necessary)
 Optimal Generator scheduling for thermal power plants by using software
package in the lab
 No action verb; no way of assessing; no way of determining attainment
level; syllabus part is rewritten.
Acceptability of Cos… Cont.

 Will get knowledge of protection schemes for Generator, Transformer and

Induction Motor
 COs are competencies / behaviors that can be demonstrated; not descriptions of
internal changes in the students (though these are necessary)
 Apply problem solving techniques to find solutions to problems.
 Too general; no clear way of assessing!
 Study variety of advanced abstract data type (ADT) and data structures and their
Implementations
 Activity that the student engages in during the Course; not what he / she
becomes capable of demonstrating at the end of the course; the word “variety”
is not to be used.
 Know the stress strain relation for a body subjected to loading within elastic limit.
 Internal change; Not an action that can be demonstrated
Acceptability of Cos… Cont.

 Students will be able to learn the structure, properties and applications of

modern metallic materials, smart materials non-metallic materials and
advanced structural ceramics.
 An outcome? How to assess?
 Students will be aware of base band signal concepts and different
equalizers.
 Internal change; Not an action that can be demonstrated
 Get complete knowledge regarding adaptive systems
 Not an action that can be demonstrated; Internal change; Too ambitious
to be realistic?
Tagging of Course Outcomes

 Tag Course Outcomes

 POs,
 PSOs,
 Cognitive Levels,
 Knowledge Categories addressed,
 Number of classroom/ laboratory/ field sessions associated with the COs
Tagging of Course Outcomes…Cont.

 Tagging COs with Classroom Sessions-Different COs may have different

number of classroom sessions
 Tagging COs with Cognitive Levels-CO statement starts with an action verb
from one of the cognitive levels
 (R-Remember, U-Understand, Ap- Apply, An-Analyse, E-Evaluate and C-
Create)
 Tagging COs with Knowledge Categories-CO statement includes one or
more categories of knowledge
Tagging COs with PSOs/POs-
Concern/Grey areas
 All the COs of a course typically address the same PSO(s).
 Majority of the courses (non-autonomous institutions): Don’t address strongly any
PO other than PO1
 PO1: Engineering Knowledge
 Possible that PO2, PO3, PO4, PO5 are addressed slightly by some courses.
 PO2: Problem Analysis
 PO3: Design/Development of Solutions
 PO4: Conduct Investigations of Complex Problems
 PO5: Modern Tool Usage
 Hardly any course addresses complex engineering problems
Tagging COs with POs- Concern/Grey
areas
 Some specific courses address PO7, PO8, PO9, PO10 and PO11
 PO7: Environment and Sustainability
 PO8: Ethics
 PO9: Individual and Teamwork
 PO10: Communication
 PO11: Project Management and Finance
 Projects can potentially address many Pos, (Rubrics-used to evaluate)
 Department can arrange for some activities outside the curriculum to address
some POs
 PO6: The Engineer and Society
 PO12: Life-Long Learning
 Course Outcome POs/ CL KC Class
PSOs Session
s

CO1 Understand the fundamentals of fluid mechanics and fluids PO1, U C, 6

PSO1
CO2 Determine the basic equation to find the force on submerged PO1, Ap C, P 9
surfaces PSO1
CO3 Calculate the center of buoyancy of floating body, and the, PO1, Ap C, 12
velocity and acceleration of a fluid PSO1

CO4 Calculate flow parameters using fluid flow meters and using PO1, Ap C, P 12
dimension analysis to predict flow phenomena, viscous effects PSO1
using Hagen Poiseille’s equation

CO5 Calculate functional losses through pipes and to calculate the PO1, Ap C, P 12
drag and life, displacement, momentum and energy thickness PSO1

Total hour of Instruction 54

Fluid Mechanics - Credits: 4:0:0
Cognitive Level (CL), Knowledge
Categories (KC),
Attainment of Course Outcomes- CO Attainment and
Quality Loop
 Setting CO Attainment Targets

 Same target (all the COs of a course) “class average marks > 60 marks”
 Targets set in terms of performance levels of different groups of
students. (does not provide any specific clues to plans for improvement
of quality of learning)

Targets (% of students getting)

(< 50) (>50 and < 65) (>65 and < 80) (≥ 80)

10 40 40 10
 Targets are set for each CO of a CO Target (Class
course separately Average %)
 Does not directly indicate the CO1 70
distribution of performance among
the students CO2 80
 Advantage of finding out the
difficulty of specific Cos CO3 75
 Improvements also can be planned
CO-wise CO4 65

CO5 70

CO6 80
 Attainment of COs

 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.

 The exit survey form should permit receiving feedback from students on all
the COs.

 Computation of indirect attainment of COs is based on the perceptions of

students! Hence, the percentage weightage to indirect attainment can be
kept at a low value, say 10%.
Direct CO Attainment

 Direct attainment of COs is determined from the performances of students

in Continuous Internal Evaluation (CIE) and Semester End Examination (SEE).
 The proportional weightages of CIE: SEE will be as per the academic
regulations in force
 Proportions of 20:80, 25:75, 30:70, 40:60, 50:50 are all possible!
 Direct attainment of a specific COs is determined from the performances of
students to all the assessment items related to that particular CO.
 Also, we need data about performance of students, assessment item-wise
Direct CO attainment from CIE and SEE

 Continuous Internal Evaluation (CIE) is conducted and evaluated by the

Department itself in both Tier 1 and Tier 2 institutes.
 When questions are tagged with relevant COs, the department has access
to performances of students with respect to each CO.
 Hence, computing the direct attainment of COs from CIE is straight
forward for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 institutes.
 Semester End Examination (SEE) is conducted by the University for Tier 2
institutes
 No means of computing the direct attainment of individual COs from SEE!
 Only possible solution, though not satisfactory, is to treat the average marks
in SEE as the common attainment of all COs!!!
 Assessment Plan for CIE - Tier 2 College
(Sample Assessment Plan for CIE)
Total Marks for CIE: 25
(A1: Assignment 1; T1: Test
1; T2: Test 2)
Class Average in CIE (Tier 2 College)
PO/PSO Attainment and quality loop
PO/PSO Attainment
CO- attainment of TierII Institute
Cont…
Cont…
Cont…
Cont…
Cont…
Cont…
Cont…
 Conclusions

 Determining the strength to which a PO/PSO is addressed, and

computing the attainment are approximations at best!
 Even if a more precise computation of PO/PSO attainment is
possible the effort involved may not be worth it.
 What is important is to follow one method across an Institute
 Strive for continual improvement in attainment, and demonstrate
the improvements with evidence.
Any Question…..?
 Acknowledgement

 All the known or unknown sources used during making the presentation are duly

acknowledged without the use of their data/information, the presentation would not

have been so informative.

Thank You