DEENBANDHU CHHOTU RAM UNIVERSITY

OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

MURTHAL, SONEPAT (HARYANA) 131039
(NAAC ‘A’ Grade Accredited State Govt. University)

Department Wise Student Feedback

(https://www.dcrustedp.in/iqac/form_selector.php)

Program Code – 001: Computer Science and Engineering

Set – A

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Whether the course outcomes discussed at the beginning of the semester?
Whether the course plan and evaluation scheme were announced at the
2
beginning of the semester?
Whether the attendance policy was announced at the beginning of the
3
semester?

2500
YES, 2173 YES, 2108 YES, 2118
2000

1500

1000

NO, 359 NO, 424 NO, 414

500

0
Whether the course plan Whether the attendance
Whether the course
and evaluation scheme policy was announced at
outcomes discussed at the
were announced at the the beginning of the
beginning of the semester?
beginning of the semester? semester?
YES 2173 2108 2118
NO 359 424 414

YES NO
 Set - B

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course contents covered?
2 Regularity for conduct of classes/labs?
3 Quality of covered contents?
4 Clarity/presentation of concepts?
5 Use of teaching aids and ICT to facilitate teaching?
6 Response of the teacher inside and outside class hours for academic matter?
7 Class Management?
8 Timely conduct, evaluation and display of internal assessment record?
Discussion on students’ performance in internal assessment (assignment/
9
test/Quiz/lab work)?
10 Motivation to students regarding academics?

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Discussio
Respons n on
Timely
e of the students’
conduct,
Use of teacher
Regularit
Quality Clarity/ teaching inside ance in on to
y for n and
Course of presenta aids and and Class internal students
conduct display
contents covered Lon of ICT to outside Manage assessm regardin
of of
covered? contents concepts facilitate class ment? ent g
classes/ internal
? ? teaching hours for (assignm academi
labs? assessm
? academi ent/ cs?
ent
c test/
record?
maOer? Quiz/lab
work)?
Excellent 588 563 563 552 523 584 577 573 558 592
Very Good 573 572 593 531 555 494 547 528 561 529
Good 800 821 821 866 868 907 886 866 813 834
Average 403 384 399 422 419 374 392 400 381 385
Below Average 168 192 156 161 167 173 130 165 219 192

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – C

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course was helpful in learning?
2 Teacher’s effectiveness in keeping interest alive in course?
3 Extent of inspiration to pursue the course area further?

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
Teacher’s
Extent of inspiration
Course was helpful effectiveness in
to pursue the course
in learning? keeping interest
area further?
alive in course?
Excellent 589 558 591
Very Good 537 585 541
Good 822 830 852
Average 419 375 369
Below Average 165 184 179

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – D

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Teaching spaces (e.g. lecture theatres, studios, classroom, laboratories)?
2 Laboratory or studio equipment and research facilities?
3 Library resources and facilities (e.g. reading hall)?
4 Online learning materials (e.g. digital library)?
5 Computing/IT resources?
6 University and Examination website?
7 Sports facility?
8 Food Outlets/Canteens/shopping complex?
9 Universal access/barrier free movement for physically challenged?
10 Student spaces and common areas? (e.g. washroom, drinking water facilities)
11 Hostel Facility?

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Student
Teachin Univers
spaces
g spaces Laborat al
Food and
(e.g. ory or Library access/
Online Universi Outlets/ commo
lecture studio resourc barrier
learning CompuL ty and Canteen n areas?
theatres equipm es and free
material ng/IT Examina Sports s/ (e.g. Hostel
, ent and faciliLes movem
s (e.g. resourc Lon facility? shoppin washro Facility?
studios, researc (e.g. ent for
website g om,
classroo h reading digital es?
physicall
library)? ? complex drinking
m, faciliLes hall)? y
? water
laborato ? challeng
faciliLes
ries)? ed?
)
Excellent 88 71 80 70 79 71 69 74 79 70 72
Very Good 81 88 76 81 81 86 72 82 81 77 85
Good 96 97 92 89 96 91 89 102 100 100 101
Average 47 51 57 60 55 62 63 49 49 57 46
Below Average 19 24 26 31 20 21 38 24 22 27 27

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – E

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Experience with University’s administrative staff?
2 Experience with Department’s administrative staff?
Experience with examination process? (e.g. timely announcement of result and
3
delivery of mark sheet etc.)
4 Experience with training and placement cell of the University?
5 Experience with extra curricular activities in the University?
6 Experience with healthcare facility?
Experience with student support services? (e.g. grievance redressal system, women
7
cell, SC/ST cell, disability cell etc)?
Relevancy and helpfulness of Induction/orientation programme of the
8.*
University/Department*?
9.* Experience with enrolment and admission processes?

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Experienc
Experienc Relevancy
e with
e with and
examinati student
helpfulne
Experienc Experienc support
Experienc Experienc on ss of Experienc
e with e with services?
e with e with process? Induction/ e with
training extra Experienc (e.g.
University Departme (e.g. grievance orientatio enrolment
and curricular e with
’s nt’s timely n and
placement activities healthcar redressal
administr administr announce e facility? system, programm admission
cell of the in the
ative ative ment of e of the processes
University University women
staff? staff? result and University ?
? ? cell, SC/
delivery /
ST cell, Departme
of mark disability
sheet etc.) nt*?
cell etc)?
Excellent 74 79 66 68 73 79 70 26 27
Very Good 84 80 75 74 77 80 83 35 41
Good 99 98 105 104 95 98 105 43 43
Average 49 49 50 58 59 48 51 18 17
Below Average 25 25 35 27 27 26 22 16 10

Excellent Very Good

Feedback Analysis:

Provide Action Taken Reports of Feedback Analysis As per the feedback analysis from the students
received through online mode, The deficiencies pointed out by the stakeholders with regard to
infrastructure have been communicated regularly to the concerned.
 Program Code – 002: Electrical Engineering
Set – A

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Whether the course outcomes discussed at the beginning of the semester?
Whether the course plan and evaluation scheme were announced at the
2
beginning of the semester?
Whether the attendance policy was announced at the beginning of the
3
semester?

2500
YES, 1914 YES, 1897 YES, 1930
2000

1500

1000

500 NO, 339 NO, 356 NO, 323

0
Whether the course plan Whether the attendance
Whether the course
and evaluation scheme policy was announced at
outcomes discussed at the
were announced at the the beginning of the
beginning of the semester?
beginning of the semester? semester?
YES 1914 1897 1930
NO 339 356 323

YES NO
 Set - B

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course contents covered?
2 Regularity for conduct of classes/labs?
3 Quality of covered contents?
4 Clarity/presentation of concepts?
5 Use of teaching aids and ICT to facilitate teaching?
6 Response of the teacher inside and outside class hours for academic matter?
7 Class Management?
8 Timely conduct, evaluation and display of internal assessment record?
Discussion on students’ performance in internal assessment (assignment/
9
test/Quiz/lab work)?
10 Motivation to students regarding academics?

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Discussio
Respons
Timely n on
e of the
conduct, students’
Use of teacher MoLvaL
Regularit evaluaLo performa
Quality Clarity/ teaching inside on to
y for n and nce in
Course of presenta aids and and Class students
conduct display internal
contents covered Lon of ICT to outside Manage regardin
of of assessme
covered? contents concepts facilitate class ment? g
classes/ internal nt
? ? teaching hours for academi
labs? assessme (assignm
? academi cs?
nt ent/
c
record? test/
maOer?
Quiz/lab
Excellent 503 474 431 442 413 419 437 419 386 474
Very Good 534 564 519 520 524 589 538 558 554 501
Good 702 666 809 761 791 759 796 772 800 786
Average 321 373 295 315 359 334 317 320 329 315
Below Average 193 176 199 215 166 152 165 184 184 177

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – C

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course was helpful in learning?
2 Teacher’s effectiveness in keeping interest alive in course?
3 Extent of inspiration to pursue the course area further?

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Teacher’s effecLveness in
Extent of inspiraLon to pursue
Course was helpful in learning? keeping interest alive in
the course area further?
course?
Excellent 450 452 412
Very Good 503 512 621
Good 769 760 775
Average 334 342 291
Below Average 197 187 154

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – D

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Teaching spaces (e.g. lecture theatres, studios, classroom, laboratories)?
2 Laboratory or studio equipment and research facilities?
3 Library resources and facilities (e.g. reading hall)?
4 Online learning materials (e.g. digital library)?
5 Computing/IT resources?
6 University and Examination website?
7 Sports facility?
8 Food Outlets/Canteens/shopping complex?
9 Universal access/barrier free movement for physically challenged?
10 Student spaces and common areas? (e.g. washroom, drinking water facilities)
11 Hostel Facility?

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Student
Teachin Univers
spaces
g spaces al
Laborat Food and
(e.g. Library access/
ory or Online Universi Outlets/ commo
lecture resourc barrier
studio learning CompuL ty and Canteen n areas?
theatres es and free
equipm material ng/IT Examina Sports s/ (e.g. Hostel
, faciliLes movem
ent and s (e.g. resourc Lon facility? shoppin washroo Facility?
studios, (e.g. ent for
research digital es? website g m,
classroo reading physicall
faciliLes library)? ? complex drinking
m, hall)? y
? ? water
laborato challeng
faciliLes
ries)? ed?
)
Excellent 60 52 47 46 45 47 42 46 45 43 43
Very Good 55 54 54 55 56 55 53 58 69 64 64
Good 69 76 77 64 80 81 71 71 73 70 70
Average 42 39 40 48 40 38 47 39 35 47 41
Below Average 16 21 24 29 21 21 29 28 20 18 24

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – E

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Experience with University’s administrative staff?
2 Experience with Department’s administrative staff?
Experience with examination process? (e.g. timely announcement of result and
3
delivery of mark sheet etc.)
4 Experience with training and placement cell of the University?
5 Experience with extra curricular activities in the University?
6 Experience with healthcare facility?
Experience with student support services? (e.g. grievance redressal system, women
7
cell, SC/ST cell, disability cell etc)?
Relevancy and helpfulness of Induction/orientation programme of the
8.*
University/Department*?
9.* Experience with enrolment and admission processes?

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Experience
Experience with student Relevancy
with support and
Experience examination Experience Experience services? helpfulness Experience
Experience
with process? with training with extra Experience (e.g. of Induction/ with
with
Department’ (e.g. timely and curricular with grievance orientation enrolment
University’s
s announcem placement activities in healthcare redressal programme and
administrati
administrati ent of result cell of the the facility? system, of the admission
ve staff?
ve staff? and delivery University? University? women cell, University/ processes?
of mark SC/ST cell, Department*
sheet etc.) disability ?
cell etc)?
Excellent 45 46 45 34 42 50 45 12 13
Very Good 62 63 59 53 51 54 60 14 14
Good 69 74 81 75 76 78 77 28 27
Average 47 43 36 46 50 36 40 8 6
Below Average 19 16 21 34 23 24 20 7 9
Action Taken Report:

The feedback via exit survey is taken on various parameters related to curriculum, infrastructure, training and
placement from the students. The following initiative has been taken at department level
• Use of ICT tools will be increased.
• Accessibility of teacher will be increased for students in their respective office to take their course problems apart
from scheduled classes.
• Classroom teaching will be made more interactive.
• Disposal time of students work in department office will be reduced.
 Program Code – 003: Electronics & Communication Engineering
Set – A

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Whether the course outcomes discussed at the beginning of the semester?
Whether the course plan and evaluation scheme were announced at the
2
beginning of the semester?
Whether the attendance policy was announced at the beginning of the
3
semester?

3000
YES, 2522 YES, 2499 YES, 2526
2500

2000

1500

1000

500 NO, 329 NO, 351 NO, 325

0
Whether the course plan Whether the attendance
Whether the course
and evaluation scheme policy was announced at
outcomes discussed at the
were announced at the the beginning of the
beginning of the semester?
beginning of the semester? semester?
YES 2522 2499 2526
NO 329 351 325

YES NO
 Set - B

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course contents covered?
2 Regularity for conduct of classes/labs?
3 Quality of covered contents?
4 Clarity/presentation of concepts?
5 Use of teaching aids and ICT to facilitate teaching?
6 Response of the teacher inside and outside class hours for academic matter?
7 Class Management?
8 Timely conduct, evaluation and display of internal assessment record?
Discussion on students’ performance in internal assessment (assignment/
9
test/Quiz/lab work)?
10 Motivation to students regarding academics?

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Discussio
Respons n on
Timely
e of the students’
conduct,
Use of teacher perform MoLvaL
Regularit evaluaLo
Quality Clarity/ teaching inside ance in on to
y for n and
Course of presenta aids and and Class internal students
conduct display
contents covered Lon of ICT to outside Manage assessm regardin
of of
covered? contents concepts facilitate class ment? ent g
classes/ internal
? ? teaching hours for (assignm academi
labs? assessm
? academi ent/ cs?
ent
c test/
record?
maOer? Quiz/lab
work)?
Excellent 722 723 685 683 684 675 688 665 657 728
Very Good 732 760 794 751 694 784 790 789 733 687
Good 913 852 866 904 901 868 874 906 925 903
Average 338 351 343 360 367 367 348 323 351 370
Below Average 146 165 162 153 205 157 151 168 185 163

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – C

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course was helpful in learning?
2 Teacher’s effectiveness in keeping interest alive in course?
3 Extent of inspiration to pursue the course area further?

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
Teacher’s effecLveness in
Course was helpful in Extent of inspiraLon to pursue
keeping interest alive in
learning? the course area further?
course?
Excellent 694 690 716
Very Good 767 734 763
Good 898 917 899
Average 346 328 286
Below Average 146 182 187

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – D

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Teaching spaces (e.g. lecture theatres, studios, classroom, laboratories)?
2 Laboratory or studio equipment and research facilities?
3 Library resources and facilities (e.g. reading hall)?
4 Online learning materials (e.g. digital library)?
5 Computing/IT resources?
6 University and Examination website?
7 Sports facility?
8 Food Outlets/Canteens/shopping complex?
9 Universal access/barrier free movement for physically challenged?
10 Student spaces and common areas? (e.g. washroom, drinking water facilities)
11 Hostel Facility?

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Student
Teachin Univers
spaces
g spaces Laborat al
Food and
(e.g. ory or Library access/
Online Universi Outlets/ commo
lecture studio resourc barrier
learning CompuL ty and Canteen n areas?
theatres equipm es and free
material ng/IT Examina Sports s/ (e.g. Hostel
, ent and faciliLes movem
s (e.g. resourc Lon facility? shoppin washro Facility?
studios, researc (e.g. ent for
reading digital es? website g om,
classroo h library)? physicall
? complex drinking
m, faciliLes hall)? y
? water
laborato ? challeng
faciliLes
ries)? ed?
)
Excellent 88 70 79 69 78 74 72 74 72 74 79
Very Good 77 79 87 70 79 84 71 80 84 84 82
Good 98 109 97 98 103 97 93 98 104 93 88
Average 42 43 38 50 44 48 47 48 44 50 47
Below Average 22 26 26 40 23 24 44 27 23 26 31

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – E

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Experience with University’s administrative staff?
2 Experience with Department’s administrative staff?
Experience with examination process? (e.g. timely announcement of result and
3
delivery of mark sheet etc.)
4 Experience with training and placement cell of the University?
5 Experience with extra curricular activities in the University?
6 Experience with healthcare facility?
Experience with student support services? (e.g. grievance redressal system, women
7
cell, SC/ST cell, disability cell etc)?
Relevancy and helpfulness of Induction/orientation programme of the
8.*
University/Department*?
9.* Experience with enrolment and admission processes?

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Experien Experien Relevan
ce with ce with cy and
examinat student helpfuln
ion Experien Experien support ess of
Experien
Experien Experien process ce with ce with services Inductio
ce with
ce with ce with ? (e.g. training extra Experien ? (e.g. n/
ce with grievanc orientati enrolme
Universit Departm timely and curricula
nt and
y’s ent’s announc placeme r healthca e on
nt cell of activities admissio
administ administ ement of re redressa program
rative rative n
result the in the facility? l system, me of
process
staff? staff? and Universit Universit women the
es?
delivery y? y? cell, SC/ Universit
of mark ST cell, y/
sheet disability Departm
etc.) cell etc)? ent*?
Excellent 73 75 68 65 68 67 63 19 24
Very Good 85 98 82 78 83 84 86 39 43
Good 96 92 100 100 97 100 110 52 50
Average 46 48 56 50 50 48 49 21 14
Below Average 27 14 21 34 29 28 19 8 8
Action to be taken by: All Departments

SUMMARY OF THE FEEDBACK ANALYSIS REPORTS

(ACADEMIC YEAR 2016-21)
It is the practice followed in our department to obtain feedback from the students, Alumni,
employer and parents for the holistic development of the department. The various source of
feedback collection in the Academic Year 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2020-2021 are
feedbacks collected about the course & course teacher during the semester and exit survey from
graduating students. These feedbacks were collected and collated in the Department level and
important suggestions / comments / remarks were given.

A. STUDENTS’ FEEDBACK
We have collected feedback from our under graduate and post graduate students. In this
feedback form a special five-point scale on the curriculum is developed. Students felt that
the objectives were clear for each course and the course workload was also manageable by
the students. The syllabus framed was socially relevant and suitable for the placements in
job market.

B. PARENTS’ FEEDBACK
Parents have entrusted the future of their children into our hands and thus they play a very
important role in the development and enhancement of the quality of this learning
experience. Feedback from parents allows the department to evaluate its service provision
and thus cater to provide excellent services towards the students. The main objectives of
collecting parents’ feedback are to provide parents the opportunity to comment on the
quality of their ward’s learning experience as required in preparation for and as part of
review process, to assess the success of academic provision in relation to the expectations
of both the parents and the students. Overall, it was concluded from the feedbacks collected
that parents were satisfied that the children have a good learning experience in the college
as a result of the good knowledgeable faculties teaching the children and they are also
satisfied with the counsellors and the mentors of the department.

C. TEACHERS’ FEEDBACK
For the academic year period 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2020-2021 the
feedback was collected from the teachers about the syllabus. All these feedbacks were
collected using a five-point rating scale. Most of the faculties agreed that the syllabus
provides comprehensive knowledge and perspective in subject area and also course has
enough scope for development of analytical, logical, technical and creative skills to the
students. Also, teachers gave suggestions regarding improvements in the curriculum to
make it more industry oriented.

D. EMPLOYERS’ FEEDBACK
For the academic year period 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2020-2021 the
feedback was collected from the employers. Most of the employers agreed that the
curriculum is effective in developing the entrepreneurial skills of the students and enables
to enhance the quality, aptitude, behaviour, attitude, analytical, logical, technical and
creative skills.

Program Code – 004: Mechanical Engineering

Set – A

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Whether the course outcomes discussed at the beginning of the semester?
Whether the course plan and evaluation scheme were announced at the
2
beginning of the semester?
Whether the attendance policy was announced at the beginning of the
3
semester?
2500

YES, 2106 YES, 2094 YES, 2095

2000

1500

1000

500 NO, 341 NO, 353 NO, 352

0
Whether the course plan Whether the attendance
Whether the course
and evaluation scheme policy was announced at
outcomes discussed at the
were announced at the the beginning of the
beginning of the semester?
beginning of the semester? semester?
YES 2106 2094 2095
NO 341 353 352

YES NO
 Set - B

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course contents covered?
2 Regularity for conduct of classes/labs?
3 Quality of covered contents?
4 Clarity/presentation of concepts?
5 Use of teaching aids and ICT to facilitate teaching?
6 Response of the teacher inside and outside class hours for academic matter?
7 Class Management?
8 Timely conduct, evaluation and display of internal assessment record?
Discussion on students’ performance in internal assessment (assignment/
9
test/Quiz/lab work)?
10 Motivation to students regarding academics?

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Discussio
Respons n on
Timely
e of the students’
conduct,
Use of teacher performa MoLvaL
Regularit evaluaLo
Quality Clarity/ teaching inside nce in on to
y for n and
Course of presenta aids and and Class internal students
conduct display
contents covered Lon of ICT to outside Manage assessme regardin
of of
covered? contents concepts facilitate class ment? nt g
classes/ internal
? ? teaching hours for (assignm academi
labs? assessme
? academi ent/ cs?
nt
c test/
record?
maOer? Quiz/lab
work)?
Excellent 636 632 572 584 562 615 599 602 556 599
Very Good 529 496 524 513 511 533 538 521 492 526
Good 717 715 793 765 795 736 766 746 749 725
Average 337 353 336 344 357 346 310 349 366 343
Below Average 228 251 222 241 222 217 234 229 284 254

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – C

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course was helpful in learning?
2 Teacher’s effectiveness in keeping interest alive in course?
3 Extent of inspiration to pursue the course area further?

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Teacher’s
Extent of inspiration
Course was helpful effectiveness in
to pursue the course
in learning? keeping interest
alive in course? area further?

Excellent 642 581 570

Very Good 498 513 562
Good 765 793 770
Average 329 321 319
Below Average 213 239 226

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – D

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Teaching spaces (e.g. lecture theatres, studios, classroom, laboratories)?
2 Laboratory or studio equipment and research facilities?
3 Library resources and facilities (e.g. reading hall)?
4 Online learning materials (e.g. digital library)?
5 Computing/IT resources?
6 University and Examination website?
7 Sports facility?
8 Food Outlets/Canteens/shopping complex?
9 Universal access/barrier free movement for physically challenged?
10 Student spaces and common areas? (e.g. washroom, drinking water facilities)
11 Hostel Facility?

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Student
Teachin Univers
spaces
g spaces Laborat al
Food and
(e.g. ory or Library access/
Online Universi Outlets/ commo
lecture studio resourc barrier
learning CompuL ty and Canteen n areas?
theatres equipm es and free
material ng/IT Examina Sports s/ (e.g. Hostel
, ent and faciliLes movem
s (e.g. resourc Lon facility? shoppin washro Facility?
studios, researc (e.g. ent for
reading digital es? website g om,
classroo h library)? physicall
? complex drinking
m, faciliLes hall)? y
? water
laborato ? challeng
faciliLes
ries)? ed?
)
Excellent 78 69 70 63 65 66 65 62 70 61 67
Very Good 55 55 68 48 61 71 54 58 56 65 64
Good 76 75 69 76 79 79 72 79 87 84 79
Average 55 52 48 57 50 39 49 44 43 53 46
Below Average 24 37 33 44 33 33 48 45 32 25 32

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – E

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Experience with University’s administrative staff?
2 Experience with Department’s administrative staff?
Experience with examination process? (e.g. timely announcement of result and
3
delivery of mark sheet etc.)
4 Experience with training and placement cell of the University?
5 Experience with extra curricular activities in the University?
6 Experience with healthcare facility?
Experience with student support services? (e.g. grievance redressal system, women
7
cell, SC/ST cell, disability cell etc)?
Relevancy and helpfulness of Induction/orientation programme of the
8.*
University/Department*?
9.* Experience with enrolment and admission processes?

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Experien Experien Relevan
ce with ce with cy and
examinat student helpfuln
ion Experien Experien support ess of
Experien
Experien Experien process ce with ce with services Inductio
ce with
ce with ce with ? (e.g. training extra Experien ? (e.g. n/
ce with grievanc orientati enrolme
Universit Departm timely and curricula
nt and
y’s ent’s announc placeme r healthca e on
nt cell of activities admissio
administ administ ement of re redressa program
rative rative n
result the in the facility? l system, me of
process
staff? staff? and Universit Universit women the
es?
delivery y? y? cell, SC/ Universit
of mark ST cell, y/
sheet disability Departm
etc.) cell etc)? ent*?
Excellent 72 68 67 53 67 67 66 20 21
Very Good 55 69 44 49 58 60 54 19 27
Good 81 82 84 78 75 87 87 31 33
Average 44 44 45 56 52 41 43 16 8
Below Average 36 25 48 52 36 33 38 9 6
 DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Summary of Stakeholder Feedback:

Students Feedback:

Feedbacks from B-Scheme clearly indicate a high level of students satisfaction, but during the
interaction with the students by faculty groups, it was conveyed by the student groups that the
syllabus was lengthy and there are less opportunity of elective subjects, the students could opt
for. Keeping in view this, the university adopted new model curriculum of AICTE.

During the pandemic times, in general the students reported moderate or high on the content and
its delivery. The matter was discussed in the faculty board and further discussed with the
students. The general opinion was that during the Covid pandemic period the content delivery
suffered due to connectivity issues and online content delivery. Keeping this in view, the IT
facility is being improved to cater to the need for improvement in teaching learning aids.

Alumni Feedback:

The alumni connect was observed to be an issue, the university is trying to improve. In the
resent survey of alumni, it was reported that students were very satisfied by the content delivery
by the department.

Further, suggestion was in terms of improvement in T&P opportunity. Keeping this in view, in
the new scheme, a full term Internship in VIII semester BTECH (Mechanical) has been
introduced as a major initiative for improvement.
 Program Code – 005: Chemical Engineering
Set – A

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Whether the course outcomes discussed at the beginning of the semester?
Whether the course plan and evaluation scheme were announced at the
2
beginning of the semester?
Whether the attendance policy was announced at the beginning of the
3
semester?

1200

YES, 1021 YES, 1043 YES, 1035

1000

800

600

400

200 NO, 145 NO, 131

NO, 123

0
Whether the course plan Whether the attendance
Whether the course
and evaluation scheme policy was announced at
outcomes discussed at the
were announced at the the beginning of the
beginning of the semester?
beginning of the semester? semester?
YES 1021 1043 1035
NO 145 123 131

YES NO
 Set - B

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course contents covered?
2 Regularity for conduct of classes/labs?
3 Quality of covered contents?
4 Clarity/presentation of concepts?
5 Use of teaching aids and ICT to facilitate teaching?
6 Response of the teacher inside and outside class hours for academic matter?
7 Class Management?
8 Timely conduct, evaluation and display of internal assessment record?
Discussion on students’ performance in internal assessment (assignment/
9
test/Quiz/lab work)?
10 Motivation to students regarding academics?

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Discussion
on
Response
Timely students’
of the
Use of conduct, performan MoLvaLo
Regularity teacher
Clarity/ teaching evaluaLon ce in n to
Course for Quality of inside and Class
presentaL aids and and internal students
contents conduct of covered outside Managem
on of ICT to display of assessmen regarding
covered? classes/ contents? class hours ent?
concepts? facilitate internal t academics
labs? for
teaching? assessmen (assignme ?
academic
t record? nt/ test/
maOer?
Quiz/lab
work)?
Excellent 355 359 344 330 314 344 340 326 317 348
Very Good 291 232 256 267 274 264 258 278 238 283
Good 328 368 365 370 366 363 378 366 384 339
Average 137 133 144 149 164 144 133 144 157 135
Below Average 55 74 57 50 48 51 57 52 70 61

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – C

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course was helpful in learning?
2 Teacher’s effectiveness in keeping interest alive in course?
3 Extent of inspiration to pursue the course area further?

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
Teacher’s
Extent of inspiration
Course was helpful effectiveness in
to pursue the course
in learning? keeping interest
area further?
alive in course?
Excellent 353 356 359
Very Good 259 258 274
Good 369 341 348
Average 151 150 136
Below Average 34 61 49

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – D

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Teaching spaces (e.g. lecture theatres, studios, classroom, laboratories)?
2 Laboratory or studio equipment and research facilities?
3 Library resources and facilities (e.g. reading hall)?
4 Online learning materials (e.g. digital library)?
5 Computing/IT resources?
6 University and Examination website?
7 Sports facility?
8 Food Outlets/Canteens/shopping complex?
9 Universal access/barrier free movement for physically challenged?
10 Student spaces and common areas? (e.g. washroom, drinking water facilities)
11 Hostel Facility?

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Student
Teachin Univers
spaces
g spaces al
Laborat Food and
(e.g. Library access/
ory or Online Universi Outlets/ commo
lecture resourc barrier
studio learning CompuL ty and Canteen n areas?
theatres es and free
equipm material ng/IT Examina Sports s/ (e.g. Hostel
, faciliLes movem
ent and s (e.g. resourc Lon facility? shoppin washroo Facility?
studios, (e.g. ent for
research digital es? website g m,
classroo reading physicall
faciliLes library)? ? complex drinking
m, hall)? y
? ? water
laborato challeng
faciliLes
ries)? ed?
)
Excellent 39 33 41 33 34 37 36 33 36 38 37
Very Good 30 32 30 28 37 37 33 34 36 33 31
Good 28 28 26 33 34 27 26 28 31 28 34
Average 23 21 25 24 20 21 22 18 18 20 16
Below Average 7 13 5 9 2 5 10 14 6 8 9

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – E

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Experience with University’s administrative staff?
2 Experience with Department’s administrative staff?
Experience with examination process? (e.g. timely announcement of result and
3
delivery of mark sheet etc.)
4 Experience with training and placement cell of the University?
5 Experience with extra curricular activities in the University?
6 Experience with healthcare facility?
Experience with student support services? (e.g. grievance redressal system, women
7
cell, SC/ST cell, disability cell etc)?
Relevancy and helpfulness of Induction/orientation programme of the
8.*
University/Department*?
9.* Experience with enrolment and admission processes?

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Experienc
Experienc Relevancy
e with
e with and
student
examinati helpfulnes
Experienc Experienc support
on s of Experienc
Experienc Experienc e with e with services?
process? Induction/ e with
e with e with training extra Experienc (e.g.
(e.g. grievance orientatio enrolment
University Departme and curricular e with
timely n and
’s nt’s placement activities healthcare redressal
announce programm admission
administra administra cell of the in the facility? system,
ment of e of the processes
tive staff? tive staff? University University women
result and University ?
? ? cell, SC/
delivery of /
ST cell, Departme
mark disability
sheet etc.) nt*?
cell etc)?
Excellent 38 35 36 34 37 36 38 6 6
Very Good 30 33 29 30 31 36 39 3 5
Good 29 34 30 24 34 28 30 8 5
Average 21 15 22 25 16 20 15 4 4
Below Average 9 10 10 14 9 7 5 2 3
 Department of Chemical Engineering

Summary of Student Feedback (UG and PG in Chemical Engineering at DCRUST)

1. Teachers are very good and helpful to the students.

2. Laboratory facilities are good for undergraduate studies.
3. The syllabus for UG studies may be outdated and needs updating to meet modern
industrial needs.
4. There is a big lack of research facilities especially for PG students.
5. There is only one smart board and no smart class-room.
6. There are no Wi-Fi facilities in the University for the students.
7. Interdisciplinary studies, Choice based system and electives for students are needed to
broad-base their education and personalize it to their interests and aptitudes.
8. Software based industrial process simulation and analysis needs newer software and
training.
9. Covid-19 period industrial-trainings by Indian Institute of Chemical Engineering (IIChe)
was much appreciated by students.
10. Expert talks, industrial visits need to be increased in frequency.
Action Taken Report on Student Feedback by CHED:

1. The entire curriculum was modified and updated as per AICTE recommendations starting
2018.
2. Wi-Fi and internet facilities have been provided in the Department.
3. Seminars and short term courses have been held often for the benefit of students and
faculty alike.
4. Equipment and accessories worth crores of rupees has been spent to set up three research
laboratories in the Department, among other facilities.
5. Software, primarily ASPEN, CHEM-CAD, CFD and MATLAB were purchased to
upgrade the simulation and computation aspects of Chemical Engineering education.
6. Industrial internships and trainings are now properly emphasized in the syllabus.
7. Faculty members are encouraged and assisted in their efforts to upgrade their skills –
including PhD and post-doctoral studies – resulting in two PhDs and one post-doctoral
research experience gain by the faculty.
8. Similarly, the laboratory non-teaching staff has upgraded their own education with
several teaching staff having M.Tech. Degree and one being engaged in Ph.D. research as
well.
9. Two smart classrooms are under completion stage in the Department.
10. The faculty council has agreed on the need for developing much stronger academia-
industrial collaborations, and work has been initiated in this regard.
11. Departmental electives, Open University electives and minor degrees in other disciplines
have been added in the syllabus for the benefit of students.
12. Modern and updated text and reference books have been added to the University library
to bring the students up to date on new developments in the field of chemical
engineering.

Program Code – 006: Bachelor of Architecture

Set – A

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Whether the course outcomes discussed at the beginning of the semester?
Whether the course plan and evaluation scheme were announced at the
2
beginning of the semester?
Whether the attendance policy was announced at the beginning of the
3
semester?

2500

YES, 2060 YES, 2015 YES, 2003

2000

1500

1000
NO, 688 NO, 700
NO, 643

500

0
Whether the course plan Whether the attendance
Whether the course
and evaluation scheme policy was announced at
outcomes discussed at the
were announced at the the beginning of the
beginning of the semester?
beginning of the semester? semester?
YES 2060 2015 2003
NO 643 688 700

YES NO
 Set - B

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course contents covered?
2 Regularity for conduct of classes/labs?
3 Quality of covered contents?
4 Clarity/presentation of concepts?
5 Use of teaching aids and ICT to facilitate teaching?
6 Response of the teacher inside and outside class hours for academic matter?
7 Class Management?
8 Timely conduct, evaluation and display of internal assessment record?
Discussion on students’ performance in internal assessment (assignment/
9
test/Quiz/lab work)?
10 Motivation to students regarding academics?

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Discussio
Respons n on
Timely
e of the students’
conduct,
Use of teacher perform MoLvaL
Regularit evaluaLo
Quality Clarity/ teaching inside ance in on to
y for n and
Course of presenta aids and and Class internal students
conduct display
contents covered Lon of ICT to outside Manage assessm regardin
of of
covered? contents concepts facilitate class ment? ent g
classes/ internal
? ? teaching hours for (assignm academi
labs? assessm
? academi ent/ cs?
ent
c test/
record?
maOer? Quiz/lab
work)?
Excellent 437 513 429 422 358 441 418 412 401 442
Very Good 541 447 493 463 432 474 440 435 472 492
Good 841 810 858 908 868 913 939 906 826 789
Average 474 501 508 478 555 486 498 524 571 536
Below Average 410 432 415 432 490 389 408 426 433 444

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – C

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course was helpful in learning?
2 Teacher’s effectiveness in keeping interest alive in course?
3 Extent of inspiration to pursue the course area further?

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Teacher’s
Extent of inspiration
Course was helpful effectiveness in
to pursue the course
in learning? keeping interest
area further?
alive in course?
Excellent 488 428 451
Very Good 546 483 448
Good 792 857 911
Average 490 495 508
Below Average 387 440 385

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – D

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Teaching spaces (e.g. lecture theatres, studios, classroom, laboratories)?
2 Laboratory or studio equipment and research facilities?
3 Library resources and facilities (e.g. reading hall)?
4 Online learning materials (e.g. digital library)?
5 Computing/IT resources?
6 University and Examination website?
7 Sports facility?
8 Food Outlets/Canteens/shopping complex?
9 Universal access/barrier free movement for physically challenged?
10 Student spaces and common areas? (e.g. washroom, drinking water facilities)
11 Hostel Facility?

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Teac Labor Libra Onlin Unive Stude
hing atory ry e Food rsal nt
Unive
spac or resou learni Outle acces spac
rsity
es studi rces ng Com ts/ s/ es
and Sport Hoste
(e.g. o and mater putin Cante barrie and
Exam s l
lectur equip facilit ials g/IT ens/ r free com
inatio facilit Facili
e ment ies (e.g. resou shop move mon
n y? ty?
theatr and (e.g. digita rces? ping ment areas
websi
es, resea readi l comp for ?
te?
studi rch ng librar lex? physi (e.g.
os, facilit hall)? y)? cally wash
Excellent 45 36 58 41 38 41 43 41 42 41 35
Very Good 47 53 82 57 60 76 58 57 56 58 69
Good 106 84 96 99 101 117 108 103 107 104 107
Average 92 97 67 85 88 84 73 90 84 96 92
Below Average 63 83 50 71 66 35 71 62 64 54 50

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – E

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Experience with University’s administrative staff?
2 Experience with Department’s administrative staff?
Experience with examination process? (e.g. timely announcement of result and
3
delivery of mark sheet etc.)
4 Experience with training and placement cell of the University?
5 Experience with extra curricular activities in the University?
6 Experience with healthcare facility?
Experience with student support services? (e.g. grievance redressal system, women
7
cell, SC/ST cell, disability cell etc)?
Relevancy and helpfulness of Induction/orientation programme of the
8.*
University/Department*?
9.* Experience with enrolment and admission processes?

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Experienc
Experienc Relevancy
e with
e with and
examinati student
Experienc Experienc helpfulne
support
Experienc Experienc on ss of Experienc
e with e with services?
e with e with process? Induction/ e with
training extra Experienc (e.g.
University Departme (e.g. grievance orientatio enrolment
and curricular e with
’s nt’s timely n and
placement activities healthcar redressal
administr administr announce e facility? system, programm admission
cell of the in the
ative ative ment of e of the processes
University University women
staff? staff? result and University ?
? ? cell, SC/
delivery /
ST cell, Departme
of mark disability
sheet etc.) nt*?
cell etc)?
Excellent 51 48 44 41 45 51 46 14 15
Very Good 74 66 66 55 64 69 60 18 22
Good 107 113 97 91 97 106 119 28 22
Average 79 87 83 90 86 82 81 9 11
Below Average 42 39 63 76 61 45 47 6 5
 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE

Summary of Stakeholder Feedback:

Students Feedback:

Feedbacks from C-Scheme indicate a high level of students satisfaction, it was observed that the
syllabus of some subjects was lengthy and there are good opportunity of elective subjects, the
students could opt for but due to lack of faculty, sometimes options are limited.

During the pandemic times, in general the students reported moderate or high on the content and
its delivery. The matter was discussed in the faculty board and further discussed with the
students. The general opinion was that during the Covid pandemic period the content delivery
suffered due to connectivity issues and online content delivery. Keeping this in view, the IT
facility is to be strengthened to cater to the need for future requirements
 Program Code – 007: Bio Medical Engineering
Set – A

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Whether the course outcomes discussed at the beginning of the semester?
Whether the course plan and evaluation scheme were announced at the
2
beginning of the semester?
Whether the attendance policy was announced at the beginning of the
3
semester?

700
YES, 644 YES, 642 YES, 636

600

500

400

300

200

100

NO, 27 NO, 29 NO, 35

0
Whether the course plan Whether the attendance
Whether the course
and evaluation scheme policy was announced at
outcomes discussed at the
were announced at the the beginning of the
beginning of the semester?
beginning of the semester? semester?
YES 644 642 636
NO 27 29 35

YES NO

Set - B
Sr.No. Feedback parameter
1 Course contents covered?
2 Regularity for conduct of classes/labs?
3 Quality of covered contents?
4 Clarity/presentation of concepts?
5 Use of teaching aids and ICT to facilitate teaching?
6 Response of the teacher inside and outside class hours for academic matter?
7 Class Management?
8 Timely conduct, evaluation and display of internal assessment record?
Discussion on students’ performance in internal assessment (assignment/
9
test/Quiz/lab work)?
10 Motivation to students regarding academics?

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Discussio
Respons n on
Timely
e of the students’
conduct,
Use of teacher performa MoLvaL
Regularit evaluaLo
Quality Clarity/ teaching inside nce in on to
y for n and
Course of presenta aids and and Class internal students
conduct display
contents covered Lon of ICT to outside Manage assessme regardin
of of
covered? contents concepts facilitate class ment? nt g
classes/ internal
? ? teaching hours for (assignm academi
labs? assessme
? academi ent/ cs?
nt
c test/
record?
maOer? Quiz/lab
work)?
Excellent 330 311 315 308 299 332 316 301 301 332
Very Good 160 187 171 189 191 152 175 195 193 187
Good 134 125 133 128 133 139 130 136 143 111
Average 35 28 31 29 25 33 32 24 21 28
Below Average 12 20 21 17 23 15 18 15 13 13

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – C

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course was helpful in learning?
2 Teacher’s effectiveness in keeping interest alive in course?
3 Extent of inspiration to pursue the course area further?

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
Teacher’s
Extent of inspiration
Course was helpful effectiveness in
to pursue the course
in learning? keeping interest
area further?
alive in course?
Excellent 287 300 292
Very Good 178 182 209
Good 163 154 136
Average 30 20 24
Below Average 13 15 10

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – D

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Teaching spaces (e.g. lecture theatres, studios, classroom, laboratories)?
2 Laboratory or studio equipment and research facilities?
3 Library resources and facilities (e.g. reading hall)?
4 Online learning materials (e.g. digital library)?
5 Computing/IT resources?
6 University and Examination website?
7 Sports facility?
8 Food Outlets/Canteens/shopping complex?
9 Universal access/barrier free movement for physically challenged?
10 Student spaces and common areas? (e.g. washroom, drinking water facilities)
11 Hostel Facility?

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Student
Teachin Univers
spaces
g spaces al
Laborat Food and
(e.g. Library access/
ory or Online Universi Outlets/ commo
lecture resourc barrier
studio learning CompuL ty and Canteen n areas?
theatres es and free
equipm material ng/IT Examina Sports s/ (e.g. Hostel
, faciliLes movem
ent and s (e.g. resourc Lon facility? shoppin washroo Facility?
studios, (e.g. ent for
research digital es? website g m,
classroo reading physicall
faciliLes library)? ? complex drinking
m, hall)? y
? ? water
laborato challeng
faciliLes
ries)? ed?
)
Excellent 29 22 22 25 28 34 26 30 28 26 24
Very Good 17 19 19 21 15 15 19 16 24 25 26
Good 16 13 20 13 13 12 13 14 12 11 11
Average 4 12 8 7 10 6 6 5 5 7 6
Below Average 4 4 1 4 4 3 6 5 1 1 3

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – E

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Experience with University’s administrative staff?
2 Experience with Department’s administrative staff?
Experience with examination process? (e.g. timely announcement of result and
3
delivery of mark sheet etc.)
4 Experience with training and placement cell of the University?
5 Experience with extra curricular activities in the University?
6 Experience with healthcare facility?
Experience with student support services? (e.g. grievance redressal system, women
7
cell, SC/ST cell, disability cell etc)?
Relevancy and helpfulness of Induction/orientation programme of the
8.*
University/Department*?
9.* Experience with enrolment and admission processes?

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Experienc
Experienc Relevancy
e with
e with and
student
examinati helpfulnes
Experienc Experienc support
on s of Experienc
Experienc Experienc e with e with services?
process? Induction/ e with
e with e with training extra Experienc (e.g.
(e.g. grievance orientatio enrolment
University Departme and curricular e with
timely n and
’s nt’s placement activities healthcare redressal
announce programm admission
administra administra cell of the in the facility? system,
ment of e of the processes
tive staff? tive staff? University University women
result and University ?
? ? cell, SC/
delivery of /
ST cell, Departme
mark disability
sheet etc.) nt*?
cell etc)?
Excellent 27 35 29 26 29 31 24 8 12
Very Good 19 17 20 22 19 16 25 8 8
Good 19 10 12 14 11 16 14 6 3
Average 4 5 6 4 9 2 4 2 1
Below Average 1 3 Exce3llent 4 Ver2y Good 5 3 0 0
 Department of Biomedical Engineering

Stakeholders Feedback Analysis for Session 2016-17

1. Analysis of Feedback forms from Students
Feedback obtained by the Department of Biomedical Engineering was put before the Internal
Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC). On the basis of the feedback so obtained, the quantitative analysis
observed by the council is presented in Table 1. The feedback was obtained on a scale of 1 to 2.
The categorization of rating based on mean score (S) of different parameters is as follows: very
good (1.50≤S≤2.00), good (1.00≤S≤1.50), satisfactory (0.50≤S≤1.00), and unsatisfactory
(S≤0.50). The feedback received from 60 students revealed that out of 10 parameters, all the 10
parameters were rated as “very good”.
Table 1. Analysis of feedback from students
Sr. Parameters Percentage of Average score Rating
No. students out of 2
Yes No
1. Are you comfortable with the content of 94.40 5.6 1.88 Very
your syllabus? Good
2. Is the existing scheme of studies & syllabi 93.02 6.98 1.86 Very
competent with its contemporaries? Good
3. Will the skills acquired through this 95.54 4.46 1.91 Very
syllabus motivate yourself for achieving Good
higher level goals of your life?
4. Is there a content of ethics, sociology and 92.67 7.33 1.85 Very
other parameters required for overall Good
development of an individual?
5. Whether the contribution of contents of 91.69 8.31 1.83 Very
your syllabus really appreciated by the Good
society?
6. Do you find examination pattern 96.58 3.42 1.93 Very
competitive enough to judge your Good
competence?
7. Do you find adequate flexibility in 91.14 8.86 1.82 Very
choosing subjects of your interest? Good
8. Is the syllabus evenly distributed across 97.70 2.30 1.95 Very
different semesters? Good
9. Do you find the recommended text books 95.56 4.44 1.91 Very
relevant and subject specific? Good
10. Do you find curriculum as outcome 94.96 5.04 1.89 Very
based? Good

The feedback received from students clearly depicts that students are very much satisfied on the 10
parameters pertaining to the quality of course content, social and ethical aspects covered by the
syllabus, even distribution of course content, relevance of the books mentioned, examination pattern,
exercising freedom of the students in choosing the subject etc.
 2. Analysis of Feedback forms from Parents
All the parents didn’t get the opportunity to participate in feedback. The ones who happily and quickly
responded were included in analysis. On the basis of the feedback so obtained, the quantitative analysis
observed by the council is presented in Table 2. The feedback was obtained on a scale of 1 to 2. The
categorization of rating based on mean score (S) of different parameters is as follows: very good
(1.50≤S≤2.00), good (1.00≤S≤1.50), satisfactory (0.50≤S≤1.00), and unsatisfactory (S≤0.50). The feedback
received from 20 parents revealed that out of 10 parameters, all the 10 parameters were rated as “very
good”.

Table 2. Analysis of feedback from Parents

Sr. Parameters Percentage of Average score Rating
No. parents out of 2
Yes No
1. Is your ward comfortable with the 93.36 5.6 1.86 Very Good
content of your syllabus?
2. Is the existing scheme of studies & syllabi 92.25 6.98 1.84 Very Good
competent with its contemporaries?
3. Will the skills acquired through this 95.95 4.46 1.91 Very Good
syllabus motivate your ward for achieving
higher level goals of his/her life?
4. Is there a content of ethics, sociology and 91.02 7.33 1.82 Very Good
other parameters required for overall
development of your ward?
5. Whether the contribution of contents of 90.89 8.31 1.81 Very Good
your syllabus really appreciated by the
society?
6. Does the examination pattern 97.14 3.42 1.94 Very Good
competitive enough to judge competence
of your ward?
7. Does your ward find adequate flexibility 92.40 8.86 1.84 Very Good
in choosing subjects of his/her interest?
8. Is the syllabus evenly distributed across 96.69 2.30 1.93 Very Good
different semesters?
9. Does your ward find the recommended 97.25 4.44 1.94 Very Good
text books relevant and subject specific?
10. Does your ward find curriculum as 93.33 5.04 1.86 Very Good
outcome based?

The feedback received from parents clearly depicts that they are very much satisfied on the 10
parameters pertaining to the quality of course content, social and ethical aspects covered by the
syllabus, even distribution of course content, relevance of the books mentioned, examination pattern,
exercising freedom of the students in choosing the subject etc.
 Department of Biomedical Engineering

Stakeholders Feedback Analysis for Session 2017-18

1. Analysis of Feedback forms from Students
Feedback obtained by the Department of Biomedical Engineering was put before the Internal
Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC). On the basis of the feedback so obtained, the quantitative analysis
observed by the council is presented in Table 1. The feedback was obtained on a scale of 1 to 2.
The categorization of rating based on mean score (S) of different parameters is as follows: very
good (1.50≤S≤2.00), good (1.00≤S≤1.50), satisfactory (0.50≤S≤1.00), and unsatisfactory
(S≤0.50). The feedback received from 50 students revealed that out of 10 parameters, 9 parameters
were rated as “very good” and just one parameter was rated as “good” for that the university is
planning to introduce CBCS (Choice based credit system).
Table 1. Analysis of feedback from students
Sr. Parameters Percentage of Average score Rating
No. students out of 2
Yes No
1. Are you comfortable with the content of 96.00 4.0 1.92 Very
your syllabus? Good
2. Is the existing scheme of studies & syllabi 94.00 6.00 1.88 Very
competent with its contemporaries? Good
3. Will the skills acquired through this 96.50 4.50 1.93 Very
syllabus motivate yourself for achieving Good
higher level goals of your life?
4. Is there a content of ethics, sociology and 91.00 9.00 1.82 Very
other parameters required for overall Good
development of an individual?
5. Whether the contribution of contents of 89.00 11.00 1.78 Very
your syllabus really appreciated by the Good
society?
6. Do you find examination pattern 90.00 10.00 1.80 Very
competitive enough to judge your Good
competence?
7. Do you find adequate flexibility in 75.00 25.00 1.50 Good
choosing subjects of your interest?
8. Is the syllabus evenly distributed across 95.00 5.00 1.90 Very
different semesters? Good
9. Do you find the recommended text books 90.50 9.50 1.81 Very
relevant and subject specific? Good
10. Do you find curriculum as outcome 93.50 6.50 1.87 Very
based? Good

The feedback received from students clearly depicts that students are very much satisfied on the 10
parameters pertaining to the quality of course content, social and ethical aspects covered by the
syllabus, even distribution of course content, relevance of the books mentioned, examination pattern,
exercising freedom of the students in choosing the subject etc.

2. Analysis of Feedback forms from Parents

All the parents didn’t get the opportunity to participate in feedback. The ones who happily and quickly
responded were included in analysis. On the basis of the feedback so obtained, the quantitative analysis
observed by the council is presented in Table 2. The feedback was obtained on a scale of 1 to 2. The
categorization of rating based on mean score (S) of different parameters is as follows: very good
(1.50≤S≤2.00), good (1.00≤S≤1.50), satisfactory (0.50≤S≤1.00), and unsatisfactory (S≤0.50). The feedback
received from 15 parents revealed that out of 10 parameters, all the 10 parameters were rated as “very
good”.

Table 2. Analysis of feedback from Parents

Sr. Parameters Percentage of Average score Rating
No. parents out of 2
Yes No
1. Is your ward comfortable with the 82.00 18.00 1.64 Very Good
content of your syllabus?
2. Is the existing scheme of studies & syllabi 88.98 11.02 1.77 Very Good
competent with its contemporaries?
3. Will the skills acquired through this 91.89 8.11 1.83 Very Good
syllabus motivate your ward for achieving
higher level goals of his/her life?
4. Is there a content of ethics, sociology and 90.50 9.50 1.81 Very Good
other parameters required for overall
development of your ward?
5. Whether the contribution of contents of 87.89 8.31 1.75 Very Good
your syllabus really appreciated by the
society?
6. Does the examination pattern 85.36 14.64 1.70 Very Good
competitive enough to judge competence
of your ward?
 7. Does your ward find adequate flexibility 92.20 7.80 1.84 Very Good
in choosing subjects of his/her interest?
8. Is the syllabus evenly distributed across 91.23 8.77 1.82 Very Good
different semesters?
9. Does your ward find the recommended 94.25 5.75 1.88 Very Good
text books relevant and subject specific?
10. Does your ward find curriculum as 90.33 9.67 1.80 Very Good
outcome based?

The feedback received from parents clearly depicts that they are very much satisfied on the 10
parameters pertaining to the quality of course content, social and ethical aspects covered by the
syllabus, even distribution of course content, relevance of the books mentioned, examination pattern,
exercising freedom of the students in choosing the subject etc.

Department of Biomedical Engineering

Stakeholders Feedback Analysis for Session 2018-19

1. Analysis of Feedback forms from Students
Feedback obtained by the Department of Biomedical Engineering was put before the Internal
Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC). On the basis of the feedback so obtained, the quantitative analysis
observed by the council is presented in Table 1. The feedback was obtained on a scale of 1 to 2.
The categorization of rating based on mean score (S) of different parameters is as follows: very
good (1.50≤S≤2.00), good (1.00≤S≤1.50), satisfactory (0.50≤S≤1.00), and unsatisfactory
(S≤0.50). The feedback received from 40 students revealed that out of 10 parameters, 9 parameters
were rated as “very good” and just one parameter was rated as “good” because students need
lesser number of subjects in final year for that university is planning to introduce internship in 8 th
semester so that students may experience industrial exposure.
Table 1. Analysis of feedback from students
Sr. Parameters Percentage of Average score Rating
No. students out of 2
Yes No
1. Are you comfortable with the content of 89.50 10.5 1.79 Very
your syllabus? Good
2. Is the existing scheme of studies & syllabi 90.00 10.00 1.80 Very
competent with its contemporaries? Good
3. Will the skills acquired through this 84.50 15.50 1.69 Very
 syllabus motivate yourself for achieving Good
higher level goals of your life?
4. Is there a content of ethics, sociology and 85.50 16.50 1.71 Very
other parameters required for overall Good
development of an individual?
5. Whether the contribution of contents of 93.50 6.50 1.87 Very
your syllabus really appreciated by the Good
society?
6. Do you find examination pattern 90.50 9.50 1.81 Very
competitive enough to judge your Good
competence?
7. Do you find adequate flexibility in 88.00 12.00 1.76 Very
choosing subjects of your interest? Good
8. Is the syllabus evenly distributed across 74.50 25.50 1.49 Good
different semesters?
9. Do you find the recommended text books 94.00 6.00 1.88 Very
relevant and subject specific? Good
10. Do you find curriculum as outcome 91.50 8.50 1.83 Very
based? Good

The feedback received from students clearly depicts that students are very much satisfied on the 10
parameters pertaining to the quality of course content, social and ethical aspects covered by the
syllabus, even distribution of course content, relevance of the books mentioned, examination pattern,
exercising freedom of the students in choosing the subject etc.

2. Analysis of Feedback forms from Parents

All the parents didn’t get the opportunity to participate in feedback. The ones who happily and quickly
responded were included in analysis. On the basis of the feedback so obtained, the quantitative analysis
observed by the council is presented in Table 2. The feedback was obtained on a scale of 1 to 2. The
categorization of rating based on mean score (S) of different parameters is as follows: very good
(1.50≤S≤2.00), good (1.00≤S≤1.50), satisfactory (0.50≤S≤1.00), and unsatisfactory (S≤0.50). The feedback
received from 10 parents revealed that out of 10 parameters, all the 10 parameters were rated as “very
good”.

Table 2. Analysis of feedback from Parents

Sr. Parameters Percentage of Average score Rating
No. parents out of 2
Yes No
1. Is your ward comfortable with the 83.00 17.00 1.66 Very Good
content of your syllabus?
2. Is the existing scheme of studies & syllabi 89.5 10.50 1.79 Very Good
competent with its contemporaries?
 3. Will the skills acquired through this 92.5 8.50 1.85 Very Good
syllabus motivate your ward for achieving
higher level goals of his/her life?
4. Is there a content of ethics, sociology and 94.00 6.00 1.88 Very Good
other parameters required for overall
development of your ward?
5. Whether the contribution of contents of 85.00 15.00 1.70 Very Good
your syllabus really appreciated by the
society?
6. Does the examination pattern 90.00 10.00 1.80 Very Good
competitive enough to judge competence
of your ward?
7. Does your ward find adequate flexibility 94.50 6.50 1.89 Very Good
in choosing subjects of his/her interest?
8. Is the syllabus evenly distributed across 93.00 7.00 1.86 Very Good
different semesters?
9. Does your ward find the recommended 90.50 9.50 1.81 Very Good
text books relevant and subject specific?
10. Does your ward find curriculum as 89.00 11.00 1.78 Very Good
outcome based?

The feedback received from parents clearly depicts that they are very much satisfied on the 10
parameters pertaining to the quality of course content, social and ethical aspects covered by the
syllabus, even distribution of course content, relevance of the books mentioned, examination pattern,
exercising freedom of the students in choosing the subject etc.

Department of Biomedical Engineering

Stakeholders Feedback Analysis for Session 2019-20

1. Analysis of Feedback forms from Students
Feedback obtained by the Department of Biomedical Engineering was put before the Internal
Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC). On the basis of the feedback so obtained, the quantitative analysis
observed by the council is presented in Table 1. The feedback was obtained on a scale of 1 to 2.
The categorization of rating based on mean score (S) of different parameters is as follows: very
good (1.50≤S≤2.00), good (1.00≤S≤1.50), satisfactory (0.50≤S≤1.00), and unsatisfactory
(S≤0.50). The feedback received from 40 students revealed that out of 10 parameters, 9 parameters
were rated as “very good” and just one parameter was rated as “good” because due to COVID,
during online classes, practical classes got affected for which University is planning to exercise
Virtual Labs option.
Table 1. Analysis of feedback from students
Sr. Parameters Percentage of Average score Rating
No. students out of 2
Yes No
1. Are you comfortable with the content of 90.00 10.0 1.80 Very
your syllabus? Good
2. Is the existing scheme of studies & syllabi 92.00 8.00 1.84 Very
competent with its contemporaries? Good
3. Will the skills acquired through this 74.00 26.00 1.48 Good
syllabus motivate yourself for achieving
higher level goals of your life?
4. Is there a content of ethics, sociology and 88.00 12.00 1.76 Very
other parameters required for overall Good
development of an individual?
5. Whether the contribution of contents of 91.00 9.00 1.82 Very
your syllabus really appreciated by the Good
society?
6. Do you find examination pattern 89.00 11.00 1.78 Very
competitive enough to judge your Good
competence?
7. Do you find adequate flexibility in 91.50 8.50 1.83 Very
choosing subjects of your interest? Good
8. Is the syllabus evenly distributed across 84.00 16.00 1.68 Very
different semesters? Good
9. Do you find the recommended text books 90.00 10.00 1.80 Very
relevant and subject specific? Good
10. Do you find curriculum as outcome 95.00 5.00 1.90 Very
based? Good

The feedback received from students clearly depicts that students are very much satisfied on the 10
parameters pertaining to the quality of course content, social and ethical aspects covered by the
syllabus, even distribution of course content, relevance of the books mentioned, examination pattern,
exercising freedom of the students in choosing the subject etc.

2. Analysis of Feedback forms from Parents

All the parents didn’t get the opportunity to participate in feedback. The ones who happily and quickly
responded were included in analysis. On the basis of the feedback so obtained, the quantitative analysis
observed by the council is presented in Table 2. The feedback was obtained on a scale of 1 to 2. The
categorization of rating based on mean score (S) of different parameters is as follows: very good
(1.50≤S≤2.00), good (1.00≤S≤1.50), satisfactory (0.50≤S≤1.00), and unsatisfactory (S≤0.50). The feedback
received from 10 parents revealed that out of 10 parameters, all the 10 parameters were rated as “very
good”.

Table 2. Analysis of feedback from Parents

Sr. Parameters Percentage of Average score Rating
No. parents out of 2
Yes No
1. Is your ward comfortable with the 83.00 17.00 1.66 Very Good
content of your syllabus?
2. Is the existing scheme of studies & syllabi 89.5 10.50 1.79 Very Good
competent with its contemporaries?
3. Will the skills acquired through this 92.5 8.50 1.85 Very Good
syllabus motivate your ward for achieving
higher level goals of his/her life?
4. Is there a content of ethics, sociology and 94.00 6.00 1.88 Very Good
other parameters required for overall
development of your ward?
5. Whether the contribution of contents of 85.00 15.00 1.70 Very Good
your syllabus really appreciated by the
society?
6. Does the examination pattern 90.00 10.00 1.80 Very Good
competitive enough to judge competence
of your ward?
7. Does your ward find adequate flexibility 94.50 6.50 1.89 Very Good
in choosing subjects of his/her interest?
8. Is the syllabus evenly distributed across 93.00 7.00 1.86 Very Good
different semesters?
9. Does your ward find the recommended 90.50 9.50 1.81 Very Good
text books relevant and subject specific?
10. Does your ward find curriculum as 89.00 11.00 1.78 Very Good
outcome based?

The feedback received from parents clearly depicts that they are very much satisfied on the 10
parameters pertaining to the quality of course content, social and ethical aspects covered by the
syllabus, even distribution of course content, relevance of the books mentioned, examination pattern,
exercising freedom of the students in choosing the subject etc.
 Department of Biomedical Engineering

Stakeholders Feedback Analysis for Session 2020-21

1. Analysis of Feedback forms from Students
Feedback obtained by the Department of Biomedical Engineering was put before the Internal
Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC). On the basis of the feedback so obtained, the quantitative analysis
observed by the council is presented in Table 1. The feedback was obtained on a scale of 1 to 2.
The categorization of rating based on mean score (S) of different parameters is as follows: very
good (1.50≤S≤2.00), good (1.00≤S≤1.50), satisfactory (0.50≤S≤1.00), and unsatisfactory
(S≤0.50). The feedback received from 50 students revealed that out of 10 parameters, 9 parameters
were rated as “very good” and just one parameter was rated as “good” because due to COVID,
during online examination, students faced problems due to network. But, the online mode paved
our path for hybrid mode of teaching as the teacher on leave can schedule his/her class in online
mode.
Table 1. Analysis of feedback from students
Sr. Parameters Percentage of Average score Rating
No. students out of 2
Yes No
1. Are you comfortable with the content of 91.50 8.5 1.83 Very
your syllabus? Good
2. Is the existing scheme of studies & syllabi 95.50 4.50 1.91 Very
competent with its contemporaries? Good
3. Will the skills acquired through this 84.00 16.00 1.68 Very
syllabus motivate yourself for achieving Good
higher level goals of your life?
4. Is there a content of ethics, sociology and 89.00 11.00 1.78 Very
other parameters required for overall Good
development of an individual?
5. Whether the contribution of contents of 90.00 10.00 1.80 Very
your syllabus really appreciated by the Good
society?
6. Do you find examination pattern 74.00 26.00 1.48 Good
competitive enough to judge your
competence?
7. Do you find adequate flexibility in 87.50 12.50 1.75 Very
choosing subjects of your interest? Good
8. Is the syllabus evenly distributed across 84.50 15.50 1.69 Very
different semesters? Good
9. Do you find the recommended text books 93.00 7.00 1.86 Very
relevant and subject specific? Good
10. Do you find curriculum as outcome 97.00 3.00 1.94 Very
based? Good
The feedback received from students clearly depicts that students are very much satisfied on the 10
parameters pertaining to the quality of course content, social and ethical aspects covered by the
syllabus, even distribution of course content, relevance of the books mentioned, examination pattern,
exercising freedom of the students in choosing the subject etc.

2. Analysis of Feedback forms from Parents

All the parents didn’t get the opportunity to participate in feedback. The ones who happily and quickly
responded were included in analysis. On the basis of the feedback so obtained, the quantitative analysis
observed by the council is presented in Table 2. The feedback was obtained on a scale of 1 to 2. The
categorization of rating based on mean score (S) of different parameters is as follows: very good
(1.50≤S≤2.00), good (1.00≤S≤1.50), satisfactory (0.50≤S≤1.00), and unsatisfactory (S≤0.50). The feedback
received from 8 parents revealed that out of 10 parameters, all the 10 parameters were rated as “very
good”.

Table 2. Analysis of feedback from Parents

Sr. Parameters Percentage of Average score Rating
No. parents out of 2
Yes No
1. Is your ward comfortable with the 83.50 16.50 1.67 Very Good
content of your syllabus?
2. Is the existing scheme of studies & syllabi 89.51 10.49 1.79 Very Good
competent with its contemporaries?
3. Will the skills acquired through this 92.0 8.00 1.84 Very Good
syllabus motivate your ward for achieving
higher level goals of his/her life?
4. Is there a content of ethics, sociology and 94.00 6.00 1.88 Very Good
other parameters required for overall
development of your ward?
5. Whether the contribution of contents of 86.00 16.00 1.72 Very Good
your syllabus really appreciated by the
society?
6. Does the examination pattern 90.02 9.58 1.80 Very Good
competitive enough to judge competence
of your ward?
7. Does your ward find adequate flexibility 95.00 5.00 1.90 Very Good
in choosing subjects of his/her interest?
8. Is the syllabus evenly distributed across 93.00 7.00 1.86 Very Good
different semesters?
9. Does your ward find the recommended 91.50 8.50 1.83 Very Good
text books relevant and subject specific?
10. Does your ward find curriculum as 90.00 10.00 1.80 Very Good
outcome based?
The feedback received from parents clearly depicts that they are very much satisfied on the 10
parameters pertaining to the quality of course content, social and ethical aspects covered by the
syllabus, even distribution of course content, relevance of the books mentioned, examination pattern,
exercising freedom of the students in choosing the subject etc.
 Program Code – 008: Bio Technology
Set – A

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Whether the course outcomes discussed at the beginning of the semester?
Whether the course plan and evaluation scheme were announced at the
2
beginning of the semester?
Whether the attendance policy was announced at the beginning of the
3
semester?

600
YES, 526 YES, 525 YES, 532

500

400

300

200

100 NO, 78 NO, 79 NO, 72

0
Whether the course plan Whether the attendance
Whether the course
and evaluation scheme policy was announced at
outcomes discussed at the
were announced at the the beginning of the
beginning of the semester?
beginning of the semester? semester?
YES 526 525 532
NO 78 79 72

YES NO
 Set - B

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course contents covered?
2 Regularity for conduct of classes/labs?
3 Quality of covered contents?
4 Clarity/presentation of concepts?
5 Use of teaching aids and ICT to facilitate teaching?
6 Response of the teacher inside and outside class hours for academic matter?
7 Class Management?
8 Timely conduct, evaluation and display of internal assessment record?
Discussion on students’ performance in internal assessment (assignment/
9
test/Quiz/lab work)?
10 Motivation to students regarding academics?

250
200
150
100
50
0
Respo Timel Discu
Use of nse of
y ssion Motiv
Regul teachi
Clarit the condu on ation
Cours arity Qualit y/
ng
teach ct, stude to
e for y of aids Class
conte condu cover
prese
and
er Mana evalu nts’ stude
ntatio inside ation perfor nts
nts ct of ed ICT to and geme and manc
n of regar
cover classe conte facilit nt?
conce outsid displa e in ding
ed? s/ nts? ate
pts? e y of intern acade
labs? teachi
class intern al mics?
ng?
hours al asses
Excellent 156 144 124 128 121 113 102 116 127 124
Very Good 144 141 155 131 139 153 170 170 137 160
Good 195 193 214 214 216 216 219 198 210 200
Average 76 90 80 98 79 88 75 77 83 79
Below Average 33 36 31 33 49 34 38 43 47 41

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – C

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course was helpful in learning?
2 Teacher’s effectiveness in keeping interest alive in course?
3 Extent of inspiration to pursue the course area further?

250

200

150

100

50

0
Teacher’s
Extent of inspiration
Course was helpful effectiveness in
to pursue the course
in learning? keeping interest
area further?
alive in course?
Excellent 143 142 146
Very Good 156 152 144
Good 186 195 211
Average 83 76 66
Below Average 36 39 37

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – D

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Teaching spaces (e.g. lecture theatres, studios, classroom, laboratories)?
2 Laboratory or studio equipment and research facilities?
3 Library resources and facilities (e.g. reading hall)?
4 Online learning materials (e.g. digital library)?
5 Computing/IT resources?
6 University and Examination website?
7 Sports facility?
8 Food Outlets/Canteens/shopping complex?
9 Universal access/barrier free movement for physically challenged?
10 Student spaces and common areas? (e.g. washroom, drinking water facilities)
11 Hostel Facility?

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Student
Teachin Univers
spaces
g spaces al
Laborat Food and
(e.g. Library access/
ory or Online Universi Outlets/ commo
lecture resourc barrier
studio learning CompuL ty and Canteen n areas?
theatres es and free
equipm material ng/IT Examina Sports s/ (e.g. Hostel
, faciliLes movem
ent and s (e.g. resourc Lon facility? shoppin washroo Facility?
studios, (e.g. ent for
research digital es? website g m,
classroo reading physicall
faciliLes library)? ? complex drinking
m, hall)? y
? ? water
laborato challeng
faciliLes
ries)? ed?
)
Excellent 28 17 20 16 16 16 20 20 21 19 20
Very Good 15 23 23 22 21 27 21 20 21 20 18
Good 24 19 21 18 26 21 24 19 21 21 25
Average 15 17 14 21 16 11 13 17 13 17 16
Below Average 1 7 5 6 4 8 5 7 7 6 4

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – E

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Experience with University’s administrative staff?
2 Experience with Department’s administrative staff?
Experience with examination process? (e.g. timely announcement of result and
3
delivery of mark sheet etc.)
4 Experience with training and placement cell of the University?
5 Experience with extra curricular activities in the University?
6 Experience with healthcare facility?
Experience with student support services? (e.g. grievance redressal system, women
7
cell, SC/ST cell, disability cell etc)?
Relevancy and helpfulness of Induction/orientation programme of the
8.*
University/Department*?
9.* Experience with enrolment and admission processes?

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Experienc
Experienc Relevancy
e with
e with and
student
examinati helpfulnes
Experienc Experienc support
on s of Experienc
Experienc Experienc e with e with services?
process? Induction/ e with
e with e with training extra Experienc (e.g.
(e.g. grievance orientatio enrolment
University Departme and curricular e with
timely n and
’s nt’s placement activities healthcare redressal
announce programm admission
administra administra cell of the in the facility? system,
ment of e of the processes
tive staff? tive staff? University University women
result and University ?
? ? cell, SC/
delivery of /
ST cell, Departme
mark disability
sheet etc.) nt*?
cell etc)?
Excellent 24 24 19 18 21 22 17 5 5
Very Good 23 23 24 22 23 23 22 5 4
Good 20 16 20 23 22 20 24 5 5
Average 10 14 13 12 12 8 14 1 3
Below Average 6 6 7 8 5 10 6 1 0
 Department of Biotechnology

ACTION TAKEN REPORT ON STUDENT FEEDBACK

The students were apprised of the course contents, evaluation scheme and attendance policy in
the beginning of the semester. The classes were conducted regularly using blackboard and ICT based
teaching methodology and courses completed on time. Internal assessment was performed by minor tests,
quiz, assignments and presentations. However, there is a need to update the syllabus and upgrade the
laboratory facilities as revealed in the feedback. Alumini feedbacks were helpful in motivating students in
placements and for pursuing higher studies in India and abroad. Parent Teachers Meetings were
conducted for taking appropriate measures for improvement of the course.

The department has comprehensively analyzed and discussed the feedback forms in staff council.
Based on the feedback of students and alumni, corrective measures were taken after discussing all the
parameters among faculty members for further improvement of academic standards of the department.
The curriculum was revised by the faculty members in accordance with the recommendations of AICTE
norms. The outside subject experts reviewed the contents of the syllabus in Post Graduate Board of
Studies and Under Graduate Board of Studies for enrichment of the curriculum.The lecture plans with
clear course objectives and outcomes were prepared by the faculty and circulated among students. The
infrastructure in the terms of purchase of equipments, chemicals etc was improved. Remedial classes were
conducted for academically weaker students. Faculty is also encouraged to upgrade their skills and
research acumen by attending conferences, short term courses etc. Inputs are being given to develop a
strong academia and Industry exposure collaborations for effective exposure to the students which would
go a long way in their placements. We are cognizant of our strengths and shall work effortlessly to
address the challenges that lie head.
 Program Code – 009: Civil Engineering
Set – A

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Whether the course outcomes discussed at the beginning of the semester?
Whether the course plan and evaluation scheme were announced at the
2
beginning of the semester?
Whether the attendance policy was announced at the beginning of the
3
semester?

2500 YES, 2366

YES, 2340 YES, 2318

2000

1500

1000

NO, 424 NO, 446 NO, 398

500

0
Whether the course plan Whether the attendance
Whether the course
and evaluation scheme policy was announced at
outcomes discussed at the
were announced at the the beginning of the
beginning of the semester?
beginning of the semester? semester?
YES 2340 2318 2366
NO 424 446 398

YES NO
 Set - B

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course contents covered?
2 Regularity for conduct of classes/labs?
3 Quality of covered contents?
4 Clarity/presentation of concepts?
5 Use of teaching aids and ICT to facilitate teaching?
6 Response of the teacher inside and outside class hours for academic matter?
7 Class Management?
8 Timely conduct, evaluation and display of internal assessment record?
Discussion on students’ performance in internal assessment (assignment/
9
test/Quiz/lab work)?
10 Motivation to students regarding academics?

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Use Resp Timel Discu
of onse y ssion Motiv
Regul
Clarit teachi of the condu on ation
Cours arity Qualit
y/ ng teach ct, stude to
e for y of Class
prese aids er evalu nts’ stude
conte condu cover Mana
ntatio and inside ation perfor nts
nts ct of ed geme
n of ICT to and and manc regar
cover class conte nt?
conce facilit outsid displa e in ding
ed? es/ nts?
pts? ate e y of intern acade
labs?
teachi class intern al mics?
ng? hours al asses
Excellent 617 622 604 543 527 648 563 555 544 639
Very Good 710 697 663 690 671 603 679 670 650 656
Good 809 790 835 849 914 877 893 917 964 859
Average 417 428 442 454 406 412 399 392 365 362
Below Average 211 227 220 228 246 224 230 230 241 248

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – C

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course was helpful in learning?
2 Teacher’s effectiveness in keeping interest alive in course?
3 Extent of inspiration to pursue the course area further?

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
Teacher’s
Extent of inspiration
Course was helpful effectiveness in
to pursue the course
in learning? keeping interest
area further?
alive in course?
Excellent 617 597 566
Very Good 655 681 746
Good 905 884 899
Average 364 375 330
Below Average 223 227 223

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – D

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Teaching spaces (e.g. lecture theatres, studios, classroom, laboratories)?
2 Laboratory or studio equipment and research facilities?
3 Library resources and facilities (e.g. reading hall)?
4 Online learning materials (e.g. digital library)?
5 Computing/IT resources?
6 University and Examination website?
7 Sports facility?
8 Food Outlets/Canteens/shopping complex?
9 Universal access/barrier free movement for physically challenged?
10 Student spaces and common areas? (e.g. washroom, drinking water facilities)
11 Hostel Facility?

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Student
Teachin Univers
spaces
g spaces al
Laborat Food and
(e.g. Library access/
ory or Online Universi Outlets/ commo
lecture resourc barrier
studio learning CompuL ty and Canteen n areas?
theatres es and free
equipm material ng/IT Examina Sports s/ (e.g. Hostel
, faciliLes movem
ent and s (e.g. resourc Lon facility? shoppin washroo Facility?
studios, (e.g. ent for
research digital es? website g m,
classroo reading physicall
faciliLes library)? ? complex drinking
m, hall)? y
? ? water
laborato challeng
faciliLes
ries)? ed?
)
Excellent 74 60 64 62 49 60 46 59 55 58 53
Very Good 55 63 61 49 62 62 56 56 62 66 64
Good 65 54 62 60 66 73 67 65 74 62 63
Average 44 51 50 56 53 38 52 47 40 40 49
Below Average 21 31 22 32 29 26 38 32 28 33 30

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – E

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Experience with University’s administrative staff?
2 Experience with Department’s administrative staff?
Experience with examination process? (e.g. timely announcement of result and
3
delivery of mark sheet etc.)
4 Experience with training and placement cell of the University?
5 Experience with extra curricular activities in the University?
6 Experience with healthcare facility?
Experience with student support services? (e.g. grievance redressal system, women
7
cell, SC/ST cell, disability cell etc)?
Relevancy and helpfulness of Induction/orientation programme of the
8.*
University/Department*?
9.* Experience with enrolment and admission processes?

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Experien
Experien
ce with Relevanc
ce with
examinati y and
student
on Experien helpfulne
Experien support Experien
Experien Experien process? ce with ss of
ce with services? ce with
ce with ce with (e.g. training Induction/
extra Experien (e.g. enrolmen
Universit Departme timely and orientatio
curricular ce with grievance t and
y’s nt’s announce placemen n
activities healthcar redressal admissio
administr administr ment of t cell of program
in the e facility? system, n
ative ative result the me of the
Universit women processe
staff? staff? and Universit Universit
y? cell, SC/ s?
delivery y? y/
ST cell,
of mark Departme
disability
sheet nt*?
cell etc)?
etc.)
Excellent 59 61 55 51 53 56 49 20 22
Very Good 63 63 69 61 65 69 67 24 23
Good 71 72 63 63 70 66 75 16 16
Average 40 40 45 46 45 36 42 5 5
Below Average 26 23 27 38 26 32 26 4 3
 Department of Civil Engineering

Feedback Analysis and Action Taken

Feedback forms were collected from the students and discussed in the departmental faculty
meeting. The outcomes of the forms were concluded and presented below:

1) Students requested to add more number of site visits for practical knowledge.
2) Smart rooms should be constructed in order to use the latest teaching techniques.
3) Approximately, 70% of the students were satisfied with respect to classes scheduled,
knowledge and demonstration of subjects.
4) All the students were satisfied with the additional materials provided to them which
helped in understanding the subject carefully.
5) More than 90% students were satisfied with respect to the time-management, activeness,
subject clarity and motivation. Also, teachers are creative in developing practical
activities.
6) The students were comfortable in their stay at hostel during pandemic time.
7) Students appreciated the teacher’s efforts during the pandemic time.

Program Code – 432 MANAGEMENT STUDIES(BMS)

Set – A

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Whether the course outcomes discussed at the beginning of the semester?
Whether the course plan and evaluation scheme were announced at the
2
beginning of the semester?
Whether the attendance policy was announced at the beginning of the
3
semester?
250

YES, 194 YES, 191

200
YES, 168

150

100
NO, 76

NO, 50 NO, 53
50

0
Whether the course plan Whether the attendance
Whether the course
and evaluation scheme policy was announced at
outcomes discussed at the
were announced at the the beginning of the
beginning of the semester?
beginning of the semester? semester?
YES 194 191 168
NO 50 53 76

YES NO
 Set - B

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course contents covered?
2 Regularity for conduct of classes/labs?
3 Quality of covered contents?
4 Clarity/presentation of concepts?
5 Use of teaching aids and ICT to facilitate teaching?
6 Response of the teacher inside and outside class hours for academic matter?
7 Class Management?
8 Timely conduct, evaluation and display of internal assessment record?
Discussion on students’ performance in internal assessment (assignment/
9
test/Quiz/lab work)?
10 Motivation to students regarding academics?

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Discussio
Respons n on
Timely
e of the students’
conduct,
Use of teacher performa MoLvaL
Regularit evaluaLo
Quality Clarity/ teaching inside nce in on to
y for n and
Course of presenta aids and and Class internal students
conduct display
contents covered Lon of ICT to outside Manage assessme regardin
of of
covered? contents concepts facilitate class ment? nt g
classes/ internal
? ? teaching hours for (assignm academi
labs? assessme
? academi ent/ cs?
nt
c test/
record?
maOer? Quiz/lab
work)?
Excellent 80 68 55 60 53 55 63 60 53 56
Very Good 55 49 49 55 45 58 50 50 48 49
Good 58 75 87 76 81 72 81 70 80 78
Average 31 34 27 30 39 32 35 42 41 40
Below Average 20 18 26 23 26 27 15 22 22 21

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – C

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course was helpful in learning?
2 Teacher’s effectiveness in keeping interest alive in course?
3 Extent of inspiration to pursue the course area further?

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Teacher’s
Extent of inspiration
Course was helpful effectiveness in
to pursue the course
in learning? keeping interest alive
area further?
in course?
Excellent 53 66 62
Very Good 72 53 61
Good 49 69 67
Average 43 42 35
Below Average 27 14 19

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – D

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Teaching spaces (e.g. lecture theatres, studios, classroom, laboratories)?
2 Laboratory or studio equipment and research facilities?
3 Library resources and facilities (e.g. reading hall)?
4 Online learning materials (e.g. digital library)?
5 Computing/IT resources?
6 University and Examination website?
7 Sports facility?
8 Food Outlets/Canteens/shopping complex?
9 Universal access/barrier free movement for physically challenged?
10 Student spaces and common areas? (e.g. washroom, drinking water facilities)
11 Hostel Facility?

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Student
Teachin Univers
spaces
g spaces al
Laborat Food and
(e.g. Library access/
ory or Online Universi Outlets/ commo
lecture resourc barrier
studio learning CompuL ty and Canteen n areas?
theatres es and free
equipm material ng/IT Examina Sports s/ (e.g. Hostel
, faciliLes movem
ent and s (e.g. resourc Lon facility? shoppin washroo Facility?
studios, (e.g. ent for
research digital es? website g m,
classroo reading physicall
faciliLes library)? ? complex drinking
m, hall)? y
? ? water
laborato challeng
faciliLes
ries)? ed?
)
Excellent 13 7 8 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 6
Very Good 7 16 11 16 17 12 16 15 11 9 16
Good 6 5 5 5 6 5 7 8 6 9 4
Average 7 2 1 5 2 7 3 1 4 1 5
Below Average 2 5 10 4 5 6 4 5 7 9 4

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – E

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Experience with University’s administrative staff?
2 Experience with Department’s administrative staff?
Experience with examination process? (e.g. timely announcement of result and
3
delivery of mark sheet etc.)
4 Experience with training and placement cell of the University?
5 Experience with extra curricular activities in the University?
6 Experience with healthcare facility?
Experience with student support services? (e.g. grievance redressal system, women
7
cell, SC/ST cell, disability cell etc)?
Relevancy and helpfulness of Induction/orientation programme of the
8.*
University/Department*?
9.* Experience with enrolment and admission processes?

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Experien Experien
Relevanc
ce with ce with
examinat student y and
helpfulne
ion Experien Experien support
ss of Experien
Experien Experien process? ce with ce with services
Inductio ce with
ce with ce with (e.g. training extra Experien ? (e.g. n/ enrolme
Universit Departm timely and curricula ce with grievanc orientati nt and
y’s ent’s announc placeme r healthcar e
on admissio
administ administ ement of nt cell of activities e redressal
rative rative result the in the facility? system, program n
me of the processe
staff? staff? and Universit Universit women
Universit s?
delivery y? y? cell, SC/
y/
of mark ST cell,
Departm
sheet disability
ent*?
etc.) cell etc)?
Excellent 8 6 5 7 5 8 8 0 0
Very Good 15 16 11 10 11 13 13 0 0
Good 5 6 8 4 6 5 4 0 0
Average 3 4 2 4 6 3 3 0 0
Below Average 4 3 9 10 7 6 7 0 0
 DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

Feedback Analysis and Action taken Report:

The feedback received for each course in each semester from students is analyzed and discussed with
faculty members and all the parameters have been discussed one by one. The University main
examination, sessional including Power Point Presentation, Group Discussion, team building activities,
quizzes and assignments are prepared so as to cover all the course outcomes of the subject concern in
accordance with the course design. From the marks obtained by the studentscourse outcomes
attainment level and programme out comes attainment level of the class is calculated as per the
ordinance. This gives the direct feedback of the class. The class coordinator of the course and the faculty
teaching the course are advised accordingly to improve the relevant parameter. Further teachers are
motivated to increase practicalteaching levels while setting question papers.

While revision of syllabi and schemes the guidelines proposed by AICTE were discussed and a tentative
frame was prepared in the staff council. There after different committees under the convener ship of
course coordinators were constituted to prepare the syllabus of each subject. These committees
prepared the base of syllabus in accordance of the feedback received and in accordance with AICTE
guidelines. Then few workshops were conducted where experts from industries, national institutions
and alumni were called. All the subjects and its contents framed by the different committees were
discussed at large. The suggestions so obtained were introduced after detailed deliberations. The
scheme and syllabus were then again discussed and approved by the BOS.
The course plans / lecture plans for each course for next semester are prepared in advance and provided
to the students before the start of the session for more effective teaching and to ensure the timely
completion of the syllabus.
 Program Code – 434: Chemistry
Set – A

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Whether the course outcomes discussed at the beginning of the semester?
Whether the course plan and evaluation scheme were announced at the
2
beginning of the semester?
Whether the attendance policy was announced at the beginning of the
3
semester?

1200

YES, 968 YES, 969 YES, 987

1000

800

600

400

NO, 179 NO, 178 NO, 160

200

0
Whether the course plan Whether the attendance
Whether the course
and evaluation scheme policy was announced at
outcomes discussed at the
were announced at the the beginning of the
beginning of the semester?
beginning of the semester? semester?
YES 968 969 987
NO 179 178 160

YES NO
 Set - B

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course contents covered?
2 Regularity for conduct of classes/labs?
3 Quality of covered contents?
4 Clarity/presentation of concepts?
5 Use of teaching aids and ICT to facilitate teaching?
6 Response of the teacher inside and outside class hours for academic matter?
7 Class Management?
8 Timely conduct, evaluation and display of internal assessment record?
Discussion on students’ performance in internal assessment (assignment/
9
test/Quiz/lab work)?
10 Motivation to students regarding academics?

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Discussio
Respons n on
Timely
e of the students’
conduct,
Use of teacher performa MoLvaL
Regularit evaluaLo
Quality Clarity/ teaching inside nce in on to
y for n and
Course of presenta aids and and Class internal students
conduct display
contents covered Lon of ICT to outside Manage assessme regardin
of of
covered? contents concepts facilitate class ment? nt g
classes/ internal
? ? teaching hours for (assignm academi
labs? assessme
? academi ent/ cs?
nt
c test/
record?
maOer? Quiz/lab
work)?
Excellent 261 228 230 233 220 228 225 230 215 240
Very Good 299 289 335 309 279 308 302 265 277 282
Good 356 349 360 343 377 391 368 398 382 369
Average 178 226 159 188 198 149 182 205 178 136
Below Average 53 55 63 74 73 71 70 49 95 120

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – C

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course was helpful in learning?
2 Teacher’s effectiveness in keeping interest alive in course?
3 Extent of inspiration to pursue the course area further?

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100

50
0
Teacher’s
Extent of inspiration
Course was helpful effectiveness in
to pursue the course
in learning? keeping interest
area further?
alive in course?
Excellent 279 231 244
Very Good 272 302 297
Good 382 382 370
Average 143 149 165
Below Average 71 83 71

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – D

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Teaching spaces (e.g. lecture theatres, studios, classroom, laboratories)?
2 Laboratory or studio equipment and research facilities?
3 Library resources and facilities (e.g. reading hall)?
4 Online learning materials (e.g. digital library)?
5 Computing/IT resources?
6 University and Examination website?
7 Sports facility?
8 Food Outlets/Canteens/shopping complex?
9 Universal access/barrier free movement for physically challenged?
10 Student spaces and common areas? (e.g. washroom, drinking water facilities)
11 Hostel Facility?

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Student
Teaching Universal
spaces
spaces Library access/
Laborator Online and
(e.g. resources University Food barrier
y or studio learning CompuLn common
lecture and and Outlets/ free
equipmen materials g/IT Sports areas? Hostel
theatres, faciliLes ExaminaL Canteens/ movemen
t and (e.g. resources facility? (e.g. Facility?
studios, (e.g. on shopping t for
research digital ? washroom
classroom, reading website? complex? physically
faciliLes? library)? , drinking
laboratori hall)? challenged
water
es)? ?
faciliLes)
Excellent 29 23 29 27 22 27 22 30 28 31 25
Very Good 38 45 39 35 37 40 38 36 42 43 41
Good 40 39 39 47 55 46 45 46 45 45 51
Average 18 21 17 15 17 12 22 14 11 13 14
Below Average 11 8 12 12 5 11 9 10 10 4 5

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – E

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Experience with University’s administrative staff?
2 Experience with Department’s administrative staff?
Experience with examination process? (e.g. timely announcement of result and
3
delivery of mark sheet etc.)
4 Experience with training and placement cell of the University?
5 Experience with extra curricular activities in the University?
6 Experience with healthcare facility?
Experience with student support services? (e.g. grievance redressal system, women
7
cell, SC/ST cell, disability cell etc)?
Relevancy and helpfulness of Induction/orientation programme of the
8.*
University/Department*?
9.* Experience with enrolment and admission processes?

60

50

40
30
20

10

0
Experienc
Experienc Relevancy
e with
e with and
student
examinati helpfulnes
Experienc Experienc support
on s of Experienc
Experienc Experienc e with e with services?
process? Induction/ e with
e with e with training extra Experienc (e.g.
(e.g. grievance orientatio enrolment
University Departme and curricular e with
timely n and
’s nt’s placement activities healthcare redressal
announce programm admission
administra administra cell of the in the facility? system,
ment of e of the processes
tive staff? tive staff? University University women
result and University ?
? ? cell, SC/
delivery of /
ST cell, Departme
mark disability
sheet etc.) nt*?
cell etc)?
Excellent 27 28 22 19 22 26 25 11 13
Very Good 44 41 33 41 38 42 40 16 16
Good 49 48 46 49 51 47 53 23 20
Average 11 12 22 16 18 11 10 7 7
Below Average 5 7 13 11 7 10 8 4 5
 Department of Chemistry

Action taken report

A meeting of the teachers of Department of Chemistry was heldto discuss the

suggestions/grievances of the UG & PG students based on Feedback. Following actions were
taken to further improve the Teaching-Learning process:
1. The course content of all the courses were reviewed and revised. The modified courses
were discussed and approved in the Board of studies of the department.
2. The infrastructure of the department has been strengthened by installing proper furniture
in classrooms and laboratories.
3. New instruments have been proposed for purchase. New experiments for students were
devised.
4. Every year new books, E-books and research journals are regularly purchased in the
central library as per the recommendation of the department faculty.
 Program Code – 436: Physics
Set – A

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Whether the course outcomes discussed at the beginning of the semester?
Whether the course plan and evaluation scheme were announced at the
2
beginning of the semester?
Whether the attendance policy was announced at the beginning of the
3
semester?

1000 YES, 943

YES, 892 YES, 904
900

800

700

600

500

400

300
NO, 200 NO, 188
200 NO, 149

100

0
Whether the course plan Whether the attendance
Whether the course
and evaluation scheme policy was announced at
outcomes discussed at the
were announced at the the beginning of the
beginning of the semester?
beginning of the semester? semester?
YES 892 904 943
NO 200 188 149

YES NO
 Set - B

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course contents covered?
2 Regularity for conduct of classes/labs?
3 Quality of covered contents?
4 Clarity/presentation of concepts?
5 Use of teaching aids and ICT to facilitate teaching?
6 Response of the teacher inside and outside class hours for academic matter?
7 Class Management?
8 Timely conduct, evaluation and display of internal assessment record?
Discussion on students’ performance in internal assessment (assignment/
9
test/Quiz/lab work)?
10 Motivation to students regarding academics?

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Discussion
on
Response
Timely students’
of the
Use of conduct, performan MoLvaLo
Regularity teacher
Clarity/ teaching evaluaLon ce in n to
Course for Quality of inside and Class
presentaL aids and and internal students
contents conduct of covered outside Managem
on of ICT to display of assessmen regarding
covered? classes/ contents? class ent?
concepts? facilitate internal t academics
labs? hours for
teaching? assessmen (assignme ?
academic
maOer? t record? nt/ test/
Quiz/lab
work)?
Excellent 227 241 243 220 209 251 202 212 207 221
Very Good 250 264 241 248 220 216 209 216 218 197
Good 345 306 348 316 359 369 374 368 319 327
Average 168 166 143 196 173 140 193 170 196 190
Below Average 102 115 117 112 131 116 114 126 152 157

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – C

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course was helpful in learning?
2 Teacher’s effectiveness in keeping interest alive in course?
3 Extent of inspiration to pursue the course area further?

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
Teacher’s
Extent of inspiration
Course was helpful effectiveness in
to pursue the course
in learning? keeping interest
area further?
alive in course?
Excellent 219 213 205
Very Good 222 196 237
Good 386 376 376
Average 150 166 143
Below Average 115 141 131

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – D

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Teaching spaces (e.g. lecture theatres, studios, classroom, laboratories)?
2 Laboratory or studio equipment and research facilities?
3 Library resources and facilities (e.g. reading hall)?
4 Online learning materials (e.g. digital library)?
5 Computing/IT resources?
6 University and Examination website?
7 Sports facility?
8 Food Outlets/Canteens/shopping complex?
9 Universal access/barrier free movement for physically challenged?
10 Student spaces and common areas? (e.g. washroom, drinking water facilities)
11 Hostel Facility?

60

50
40
30
20

10
0
Student
Teaching
Universal spaces
spaces
Laborator Library access/ and
(e.g. Online Food
y or resources Universit barrier common
lecture learning CompuLn Outlets/
studio and y and free areas?
theatres, materials g/IT Sports Canteens Hostel
equipme faciliLes ExaminaL moveme (e.g.
studios, (e.g. resources facility? / Facility?
nt and (e.g. on nt for washroo
classroo digital ? shopping
research reading website? physically m,
m, library)? complex? challenge
faciliLes? hall)? drinking
laboratori d? water
es)?
faciliLes)
Excellent 25 26 30 28 27 29 22 31 27 31 36
Very Good 39 36 52 44 35 46 36 38 44 37 34
Good 48 47 36 34 39 38 45 40 38 44 43
Average 18 17 12 20 28 17 19 19 20 16 18
Below Average 13 17 13 17 14 13 21 15 14 15 12

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – E

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Experience with University’s administrative staff?
2 Experience with Department’s administrative staff?
Experience with examination process? (e.g. timely announcement of result and
3
delivery of mark sheet etc.)
4 Experience with training and placement cell of the University?
5 Experience with extra curricular activities in the University?
6 Experience with healthcare facility?
Experience with student support services? (e.g. grievance redressal system, women
7
cell, SC/ST cell, disability cell etc)?
Relevancy and helpfulness of Induction/orientation programme of the
8.*
University/Department*?
9.* Experience with enrolment and admission processes?

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Experienc
Experienc Relevancy
e with
e with and
examinati student
Experienc Experienc helpfulnes
support
Experienc Experienc on s of Experienc
e with e with services?
e with e with process? Induction/ e with
training extra Experienc (e.g.
University Departme (e.g. grievance orientatio enrolment
and curricular e with
’s nt’s timely n and
placement activities healthcare redressal
administr administr announce facility? programm admission
cell of the in the system,
ative ative ment of e of the processes
University University women
staff? staff? result and University ?
? ? cell, SC/
delivery of /
ST cell, Departme
mark disability
sheet etc.) nt*?
cell etc)?
Excellent 31 35 30 29 33 32 29 11 12
Very Good 40 44 37 32 32 36 38 16 12
Good 37 38 35 42 40 44 46 20 24
Average 17 16 22 19 20 16 17 6 6
Below Average 18 10 19 21 18 15 13 4 3
 Department of Physics

Feedback Analysis and action taken report

An interaction among the teachers of Dept. of Physics, was organized for discussing the
suggestions/grievances of the UG & PG students based on Feedback. Following actions were
taken to further improve the Teaching-Learning process:

* The course content of each course was revisited and modifications such as introduction of
seminars, project dissertation, open elective and specialized elective papers, Choice Base Credit
System (CBCS) were made which were approved by BOS& PGBOS.
*The infrastructure of the department was strengthened by introducing proper furniture both in
the Lecture Halls and Teaching laboratories.

*New instruments were purchased in order to set up new practical in UG and PG labs.

* New e-books, e-journals and hard books were recommended for purchase by university library.

Program Code MATHEMATICS

Set – A

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Whether the course outcomes discussed at the beginning of the semester?
Whether the course plan and evaluation scheme were announced at the
2
beginning of the semester?
Whether the attendance policy was announced at the beginning of the
3
semester?
1400
YES, 1239 YES, 1245 YES, 1265

1200

1000

800

600

400
NO, 216 NO, 210 NO, 190
200

0
Whether the course plan Whether the attendance
Whether the course
and evaluation scheme policy was announced at
outcomes discussed at the
were announced at the the beginning of the
beginning of the semester?
beginning of the semester? semester?
YES 1239 1245 1265
NO 216 210 190

YES NO
 Set - B

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course contents covered?
2 Regularity for conduct of classes/labs?
3 Quality of covered contents?
4 Clarity/presentation of concepts?
5 Use of teaching aids and ICT to facilitate teaching?
6 Response of the teacher inside and outside class hours for academic matter?
7 Class Management?
8 Timely conduct, evaluation and display of internal assessment record?
Discussion on students’ performance in internal assessment (assignment/
9
test/Quiz/lab work)?
10 Motivation to students regarding academics?

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Respo Timel Discu
Use of nse of y ssion
teachi the Motiv
Regul condu on
Cours arity Clarit ng teach ation
Qualit y/ ct, stude
e for y of aids er Class evalu nts’ to
prese
conte condu cover and inside Mana stude
ntatio ation perfor
nts ct of ed ICT to and geme nts
n of and manc regar
cover class conte facilit outsid nt?
conce displa e in ding
ed? es/ nts? ate e y of intern
pts? acade
labs? teachi class intern al
mics?
ng? hours al asses
for asses sment
Excellent 357 339 320 337 324 333 335 341 300 334
Very Good 337 330 343 343 316 343 324 344 348 300
Good 474 501 488 443 436 493 516 459 481 469
Average 178 177 196 211 226 167 174 204 185 198
Below Average 109 108 108 121 153 119 106 107 141 154

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – C

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course was helpful in learning?
2 Teacher’s effectiveness in keeping interest alive in course?
3 Extent of inspiration to pursue the course area further?

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
Teacher’s
Extent of inspiration
Course was helpful effectiveness in
to pursue the course
in learning? keeping interest
area further?
alive in course?
Excellent 342 322 324
Very Good 335 327 287
Good 482 483 506
Average 177 197 192
Below Average 119 126 146

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – D

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Teaching spaces (e.g. lecture theatres, studios, classroom, laboratories)?
2 Laboratory or studio equipment and research facilities?
3 Library resources and facilities (e.g. reading hall)?
4 Online learning materials (e.g. digital library)?
5 Computing/IT resources?
6 University and Examination website?
7 Sports facility?
8 Food Outlets/Canteens/shopping complex?
9 Universal access/barrier free movement for physically challenged?
10 Student spaces and common areas? (e.g. washroom, drinking water facilities)
11 Hostel Facility?

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Student
Teachin Univers
spaces
g spaces Laborat al
Food and
(e.g. ory or Library access/
Online Universi Outlets/ commo
lecture studio resourc barrier
learning CompuL ty and Canteen n areas?
theatres equipm es and free
material ng/IT Examina Sports s/ (e.g. Hostel
, ent and faciliLes movem
s (e.g. resourc Lon facility? shoppin washro Facility?
studios, researc (e.g. ent for
digital es? website g om,
classroo h reading physicall
library)? ? complex drinking
m, faciliLes hall)? y
? water
laborato ? challeng
faciliLes
ries)? ed?
)
Excellent 59 45 65 47 50 49 44 53 48 51 43
Very Good 57 57 62 50 61 63 57 62 69 71 62
Good 86 84 74 79 80 80 85 81 93 79 84
Average 30 35 27 40 36 41 31 34 21 31 36
Below Average 20 31 24 36 25 19 35 22 21 20 27

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – E

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Experience with University’s administrative staff?
2 Experience with Department’s administrative staff?
Experience with examination process? (e.g. timely announcement of result and
3
delivery of mark sheet etc.)
4 Experience with training and placement cell of the University?
5 Experience with extra curricular activities in the University?
6 Experience with healthcare facility?
Experience with student support services? (e.g. grievance redressal system, women
7
cell, SC/ST cell, disability cell etc)?
Relevancy and helpfulness of Induction/orientation programme of the
8.*
University/Department*?
9.* Experience with enrolment and admission processes?

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Experienc
Experienc Relevancy
e with
e with and
examinati student
helpfulne
Experienc Experienc support
Experienc Experienc on ss of Experienc
e with e with services?
e with e with process? Induction/ e with
training extra Experienc (e.g.
University Departme (e.g. grievance orientatio enrolment
and curricular e with
’s nt’s timely n and
placement activities healthcar redressal
administr administr announce e facility? system, programm admission
cell of the in the
ative ative ment of e of the processes
University University women
staff? staff? result and University ?
? ? cell, SC/
delivery /
ST cell, Departme
of mark disability
sheet etc.) nt*?
cell etc)?
Excellent 50 48 44 44 46 48 50 14 13
Very Good 61 68 54 65 64 74 64 17 20
Good 87 86 86 84 84 80 94 28 25
Average 25 26 28 30 30 29 23 7 9
Below Average 29 24 40 29 28 21 21 4 3
 Department of Mathematics
Action Taken Report
A departmental faculty meeting was organized to discuss the issues related feedback obtained
from students.
● It has been decided to enrich the study methods to make the deep study of all subjects.
● More emphasis will be given on instructive teaching.
● Drinking water problem was resolved.
● The infrastructure of the department was strengthened by providing wifi/internet
connection/Lab/ Projector/ etc.
● Cultural activity and education tours are organized as desired by students by time to time.
● As per need of students online/offline classes were conducted by using audio-visual aids
to encourage the efficiency of teaching & learning process.
● On the demand of student’s choice bound credit system (CBCS) were adopted which was
further approved by the department BOS/PGBOS.

Program Code – 471: DUAL DEGREE-B.A. (Hons) English - M.A. English

Set – A

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Whether the course outcomes discussed at the beginning of the semester?
Whether the course plan and evaluation scheme were announced at the
2
beginning of the semester?
Whether the attendance policy was announced at the beginning of the
3
semester?
350
YES, 299 YES, 303
YES, 294
300

250

200

150

100

50 NO, 26
NO, 21 NO, 17

0
Whether the course plan Whether the attendance
Whether the course
and evaluation scheme policy was announced at
outcomes discussed at the
were announced at the the beginning of the
beginning of the semester?
beginning of the semester? semester?
YES 299 294 303
NO 21 26 17

YES NO
 Set - B

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course contents covered?
2 Regularity for conduct of classes/labs?
3 Quality of covered contents?
4 Clarity/presentation of concepts?
5 Use of teaching aids and ICT to facilitate teaching?
6 Response of the teacher inside and outside class hours for academic matter?
7 Class Management?
8 Timely conduct, evaluation and display of internal assessment record?
Discussion on students’ performance in internal assessment (assignment/
9
test/Quiz/lab work)?
10 Motivation to students regarding academics?

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Discussio
Respons n on
Timely
e of the students’
conduct,
Use of teacher performa MoLvaL
Regularit evaluaLo
Quality Clarity/ teaching inside nce in on to
y for n and
Course of presenta aids and and Class internal students
conduct display
contents covered Lon of ICT to outside Manage assessme regardin
of of
covered? contents concepts facilitate class ment? nt g
classes/ internal
? ? teaching hours for (assignm academi
labs? assessme
? academi ent/ cs?
nt
c test/
record?
maOer? Quiz/lab
work)?
Excellent 100 81 93 87 78 80 67 74 58 84
Very Good 109 115 106 126 107 114 122 118 107 93
Good 93 92 98 77 98 88 99 100 101 109
Average 15 25 21 29 32 36 27 26 50 32
Below Average 3 7 2 1 5 2 5 2 4 2

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – C

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course was helpful in learning?
2 Teacher’s effectiveness in keeping interest alive in course?
3 Extent of inspiration to pursue the course area further?

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
Teacher’s
Extent of inspiration
Course was helpful effectiveness in
to pursue the course
in learning? keeping interest
area further?
alive in course?
Excellent 70 70 82
Very Good 111 111 99
Good 119 111 108
Average 20 27 27
Below Average 0 1 4

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – D

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Teaching spaces (e.g. lecture theatres, studios, classroom, laboratories)?
2 Laboratory or studio equipment and research facilities?
3 Library resources and facilities (e.g. reading hall)?
4 Online learning materials (e.g. digital library)?
5 Computing/IT resources?
6 University and Examination website?
7 Sports facility?
8 Food Outlets/Canteens/shopping complex?
9 Universal access/barrier free movement for physically challenged?
10 Student spaces and common areas? (e.g. washroom, drinking water facilities)
11 Hostel Facility?

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Student
Teachin Univers
spaces
g spaces al
Laborat Food and
(e.g. Library access/
ory or Online Universi Outlets/ commo
lecture resourc barrier
studio learning CompuL ty and Canteen n areas?
theatres es and free
equipm material ng/IT Examina Sports s/ (e.g. Hostel
, faciliLes movem
ent and s (e.g. resourc Lon facility? shoppin washroo Facility?
studios, (e.g. ent for
research digital es? website g m,
classroo reading physicall
faciliLes library)? ? complex drinking
m, hall)? y
? ? water
laborato challeng
faciliLes
ries)? ed?
)
Excellent 14 11 13 13 9 10 8 14 8 10 15
Very Good 18 19 21 22 21 26 20 23 22 27 17
Good 16 19 18 18 23 21 23 20 27 19 24
Average 10 12 7 8 10 5 8 5 5 5 6
Below Average 6 3 5 3 1 2 5 2 2 3 2

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – E

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Experience with University’s administrative staff?
2 Experience with Department’s administrative staff?
Experience with examination process? (e.g. timely announcement of result and
3
delivery of mark sheet etc.)
4 Experience with training and placement cell of the University?
5 Experience with extra curricular activities in the University?
6 Experience with healthcare facility?
Experience with student support services? (e.g. grievance redressal system, women
7
cell, SC/ST cell, disability cell etc)?
Relevancy and helpfulness of Induction/orientation programme of the
8.*
University/Department*?
9.* Experience with enrolment and admission processes?

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Experienc
Experienc Relevancy
e with
e with and
student
examinati helpfulnes
Experienc Experienc support
on s of Experienc
Experienc Experienc e with e with services?
process? Induction/ e with
e with e with training extra Experienc (e.g.
(e.g. grievance orientatio enrolment
University Departme and curricular e with
timely n and
’s nt’s placement activities healthcare redressal
announce programm admission
administra administra cell of the in the facility? system,
ment of e of the processes
tive staff? tive staff? University University women
result and University ?
? ? cell, SC/
delivery of /
ST cell, Departme
mark disability
sheet etc.) nt*?
cell etc)?
Excellent 13 13 13 10 9 11 9 11 14
Very Good 22 23 20 23 19 22 25 22 24
Good 22 23 24 21 22 21 22 21 19
Average 6 2 6 9 9 8 6 7 7
Below Average 1 3 1 1 5 2 2 3 0
 Feedback Analysis and Action Taken Report

Department of Humanities

The Indirect Feedback received from students for the course in every semester was compared
with the Direct Feedback. The end semester theory exam question papers and Minor Test
question papers, along with quizzes, classroom activities and Term Papers have been so
designed/set so as to cover Course Outcomes of the subjects concerned taking into consideration
different Bloom’s levels as required in accordance with the design of course. From the marks
obtained by the students, Course Outcome and Program Outcome attainment level was
calculated as per the prescribed guidelines. Consequent upon analysis of feedback from the
students the department worked seriously on improvement techniques. Discussions among
faculty members led to desirable improvements in teaching learning processes, strengthening of
infrastructure, procurement of more print and e-resources. Greater exposure to research and more
frequent use of ICT to ensure better teaching results and higher learning outcomes.
 Program Code – 556: Department of CEEES
Set – A

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Whether the course outcomes discussed at the beginning of the semester?
Whether the course plan and evaluation scheme were announced at the
2
beginning of the semester?
Whether the attendance policy was announced at the beginning of the
3
semester?

80
NO, 69
70
NO, 63 NO, 63
YES, 59 YES, 61
60 YES, 55

50

40

30

20

10

0
Experience with
Experience with examination process? (e.g.
Experience with University’s
Department’s administrative timely announcement of
administrative staff?
staff? result and delivery of mark
sheet etc.)
YES 59 61 55
NO 63 63 69

YES NO
 Set - B

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course contents covered?
2 Regularity for conduct of classes/labs?
3 Quality of covered contents?
4 Clarity/presentation of concepts?
5 Use of teaching aids and ICT to facilitate teaching?
6 Response of the teacher inside and outside class hours for academic matter?
7 Class Management?
8 Timely conduct, evaluation and display of internal assessment record?
Discussion on students’ performance in internal assessment (assignment/
9
test/Quiz/lab work)?
10 Motivation to students regarding academics?

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Discussio
n on
Respons Timely
students’
e of the conduct,
Use of performa MoLvaL
Regularit teacher evaluaLo
Quality Clarity/ teaching nce in on to
y for inside n and
Course of presenta aids and Class internal students
conduct and display
contents covered Lon of ICT to Manage assessme regardin
of outside of
covered? contents concepts facilitate ment? nt g
classes/
? ? teaching class internal
(assignm academic
labs? hours for assessme
? ent/ s?
academic nt
test/
maOer? record?
Quiz/lab
work)?
Excellent 29 16 24 21 18 19 18 17 22 29
Very Good 50 46 50 61 47 54 53 55 61 65
Good 54 53 53 41 46 45 52 53 40 28
Average 25 42 30 32 40 38 24 30 16 26
Below Average 12 13 13 15 19 14 23 15 31 22

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – C

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Course was helpful in learning?
2 Teacher’s effectiveness in keeping interest alive in course?
3 Extent of inspiration to pursue the course area further?

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Teacher’s
Extent of inspiration
Course was helpful effectiveness in
to pursue the course
in learning? keeping interest alive
area further?
in course?
Excellent 26 26 32
Very Good 71 57 53
Good 37 38 44
Average 15 29 19
Below Average 21 20 22

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – D

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Teaching spaces (e.g. lecture theatres, studios, classroom, laboratories)?
2 Laboratory or studio equipment and research facilities?
3 Library resources and facilities (e.g. reading hall)?
4 Online learning materials (e.g. digital library)?
5 Computing/IT resources?
6 University and Examination website?
7 Sports facility?
8 Food Outlets/Canteens/shopping complex?
9 Universal access/barrier free movement for physically challenged?
10 Student spaces and common areas? (e.g. washroom, drinking water facilities)
11 Hostel Facility?

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Student
Teachin Univers
spaces
g spaces al
Laborat Food and
(e.g. Library access/
ory or Online Universi Outlets/ commo
lecture resourc barrier
studio learning CompuL ty and Canteen n areas?
theatres es and free
equipm material ng/IT Examina Sports s/ (e.g. Hostel
, faciliLes movem
ent and s (e.g. resourc Lon facility? shoppin washroo Facility?
studios, (e.g. ent for
research digital es? website g m,
classroo reading physicall
faciliLes library)? ? complex drinking
m, hall)? y
? ? water
laborato challeng
faciliLes
ries)? ed?
)
Excellent 3 2 3 4 3 2 1 4 4 3 2
Very Good 11 12 12 10 13 10 12 10 11 11 11
Good 6 5 7 7 6 10 8 7 12 8 7
Average 6 7 4 7 5 5 7 3 0 3 4
Below Average 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 5 2 4 5

Excellent Very Good Good Average Below Average

 Set – E

Sr.No. Feedback parameter

1 Experience with University’s administrative staff?
2 Experience with Department’s administrative staff?
Experience with examination process? (e.g. timely announcement of result and
3
delivery of mark sheet etc.)
4 Experience with training and placement cell of the University?
5 Experience with extra curricular activities in the University?
6 Experience with healthcare facility?
Experience with student support services? (e.g. grievance redressal system, women
7
cell, SC/ST cell, disability cell etc)?
Relevancy and helpfulness of Induction/orientation programme of the
8.*
University/Department*?
9.* Experience with enrolment and admission processes?

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Experienc
Experienc
e with Relevancy
e with
student and
examinati
Experienc Experienc support helpfulnes
on Experienc
Experienc Experienc e with e with services? s of
process? e with
e with e with training extra Experienc (e.g. Induction/
(e.g. enrolment
University’ Departme and curricular e with grievance orientatio
timely and
s nt’s placement activities healthcare redressal n
announce admission
administra administra cell of the in the facility? system, programm
ment of processes
tive staff? tive staff? University University women e of the
result and ?
? ? cell, SC/ University/
delivery of
ST cell, Departme
mark
disability nt*?
sheet etc.)
cell etc)?
Excellent 5 7 5 3 3 3 2 0 1
Very Good 7 9 10 8 14 15 11 8 6
Good 9 9 10 11 7 9 13 5 7
Average 3 1 2 5 4 1 1 3 1
Below Average 5 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 3
 CEEES Program

Feedback Analysis AND Action taken:

The course outcome/plan and other policies like attendance and evolution is generally discussed
in the beginning but the admission process is a long process and lasts for one and half month so
some students may have taken admission late so may a reason for students not able to
understand. Regarding course content covered the feedback received is very good. The syllabus
was changed as per needs. Regularity for conduct of classes is also lies in the good scale. Further
the response of teacher inside and outside the class for academic matters is also good. Motivation
to students regarding academics is very good. During lockdown it was tried to use of teaching
aids and ICT to facilitate teaching. Class management and timely conduct of internal exam was
found good. The students have given an overall feedback from excellent to very good category
regarding teacher’s effectiveness and guidance for displaying in class. Feedback regarding
teaching spaces is very good. Laboratory and library facilities are also very good. Online
learning materials are average. During lockdown it was tried to increase online learning
materials. Analysis of feedback parameters related to administrative staff and examination
process and various sections like health care, tanning and placement it was observed that overall
the analysis come under very good category. Although a very less percentage of students were
unhappy with the system but it was after deliberating with faculty and students.

Action taken report

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vFjfr2uisjtURCB_OEw4H1jSJkLydz1D/view?usp=sharing
 Student, Parents , Alumni and Employer Feedback taken through Physical mode

1 ECE Employer https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P6xHVKH3YgigrFxq_EuFV4nNMarFJs

EL/view?usp=sharing
2 TPO Employer https://drive.google.com/file/d/180YkOURw4Se-
EEpU5eehVG7V_zfQoXz6/view?usp=sharing