Part B-Program Assessment Worksheet

Program Level Criteria - To be Assessed by the Evaluator

Name of the Institution :Ghousia Collage of Enginearing

Name of the Program: UG-Computer Science and Engineering

Sl. Sub Criteria Staff Incharge Max Evaluation Guidelines(Marks) Marks Awarded Observations of Evaluators (Provide
No. . Overall Justifications/Reasons)
Mark marks
s Marks Total
A. Availability of statements of the department(1) 1 4 4
State the Vision and Mission of the
1.1. 5 B. Appropriateness/Relevance of the Statements(2) 1
Department and Institute
C. Consistency of the Department statements with the Institute 2
statements(2)

4 4 4
State the Program Educational Program Educational
1.2. 5
Objectives(PEOs) Objectives(3to5)(5)Availability &
correctness

A. Adequacy in respect of publication & dissemination(2) 2 9 General awareness of V,M and

Indicate where and how the Vision 9
Mrs. Zahra Amreen B. Process of dissemination among stakeholders(2) PEGs Stakeholders is very good
1.3. ,Mission and PEOs are published and 10 2

disseminated among stakeholders Mrs. Shaheena Bagum

C. Extent of awareness of Vision ,Mission & PEOs among the 5
stakeholder(6),

A. Description of process for defining the Vision, Mission of the 7 17

State the process for defining the 17
Department(10)
1.4. Vision and Mission of the Department 25
,and PEOs of the program
B. Description of process for defining the PEOs of the program
10
(15)

A. Preparation of a matrix of mapping PEOs and elements of 4 12 12

Establish consistency of PEOs with
1.5. 15 Mission
Mission of the Department statement(5)
B. Consistency/justification of mapping of the matrix(5) 8

Total of Criterion 1: 60 Overall Marks and Grade for Criterion 1: 46

Criterion 2:Program Curriculum and Teaching–Learning Processes(100)
Sl. No. Sub Criteria Staff Incharge Max. Evaluation Guidelines MarksAwarded Observations of
Marks Total Overall
Marks Marks Evaluators(Provide
Justifications/ Reasons)
2.1. Program Curriculum 20
Curr. gaps are identifier, but not
Dr. Omar Khan Durrani A. Process used to identify extent of compliance of University curriculum
State the process used to identify with ref. to POs and PSOS
2.1.1. 10 for attaining POS & PSOS (6)
extent of compliance of the 5
University curriculum for attaining 1
B. List the curricular gaps for the attainment of defined POS & PSOS (4) 6
the Program Outcomes (POS) &
Program Specific Outcomes
(PSOS), mention the identified 12
curricular gaps, if any
1 Mapping of Content beyond syll.
State the delivery details of the Dr. Omar Khan Durrani
A. Steps taken to get identified gaps included in the curriculum.(letter to With POs and PSOs packs
2.1.2. content beyond the syllabus for POs 10
university/BOS) (2) understanding
and PSOS
4
B. Delivery details of content beyond syllabus (5) 6
1
C. Mapping of content beyond syllabus with the POS & PSOS (3)

2.2 Teaching-Learning Processes 100

Describe the Process followed to Mrs. S Ganeshan 25
25
A. Adherence to Academic Calendar (3)
2.2.1 improve quality of Teaching 3
Learning B. Use of various instructional methods and pedagogical initiatives (3)
2
C. Methodologies to support weak students and encourage bright
students (4) 3
D. Quality of classroom teaching (Observation in a Class) (3)
2 18
E. Conduct of experiments (Observation in Lab) (3
2
F. Continuous Assessment in the laboratory (3)
2
G. Student feedback on teaching learning process and actions taken (6)
4
2.2.2 Quality of internal semester Mrs. S Ganeshan 25 A. Industrial training/tours for students (3)
20question papers, assignments 4
and evaluation Assignment are not very create
B. Industrial /internship /summer training of more than two weeks and These are only at level 122 of BT.
post training Assessment (4) 4

C. Impact analysis of industrial training (4) 14

4

D. Student feedback on initiative (4)

2
 A. Identification of projects and allocation methodology to 2
Faculty(3)
B. Types and relevance of the projects and their
contribution towards 3
2.2.3. Quality of student projects 25 Attainment of Pos and PSOs(5)
C. Process for monitoring and evaluation(5)
4 18
D. Process to assess individual and team performance(5)
3
E. Quality of completed projects/working prototypes(5)
4
F. Evidences of papers published/Awards received by
projects etc.(2) 2 57
Dr. Rajeshwari M R A. Industry supported laboratories(5) There is no industry supported Lab. Impact
Mrs. Rekha D 0 analysis of III is packing
B. Industry involvement in the program design and partial 1
Initiatives related to delivery of any regular courses for students(5) 1
2.2.4. 15
industry interaction C. Impact analysis of industry institute interaction and 0
actions taken
thereof(5)
A. Industrial training/ tours for students(3) 2 No impact analysis on industrial visit Internship
No initiative on student's feedback
Initiatives related to B. Industrial internship/summer training of more than two 4
2.2.5. 15 weeks and
industry internship 6
Post training Assessment(4)
/summer training
0
C. Impact analysis of industrial training(4)
D. Student feedback on initiative(4) 0
Total of Criterion2: 120 Overall Marks and Grade for Criterion 2: 69
Criterion 3:Course Outcomes and Program Outcomes(175)
Sl. No. Sub Criteria Staff Incharge Max. Evaluation Guidelines Marks Awarded Overall Observations of Evaluators(Provide
Marks Marks Justifications/ Reasons)
Marks Total
3.1 Establish the correlation between 20
the courses and the POs & PSOs
3.1.1 Course Outcomes Mrs. Arjuman Naaz 5
Mrs. Afshana 5 Evidence of Cos being defined for every course(5)
3.1.2 CO-PO/PSOS matrices of 5 courses Khanum 5 Evidence of COs being defined for every course (5) 4
17
selected in 3.1.1 (six matrices
3.1.3 Program level Course- 10 PO/PSOS Ms. Sufiya Begum 10 Explanation of table to be ascertained (10) 8 17
matrix of ALL courses including first
year courses

3.2 Attainment of Course Outcomes 50

.
Mrs. Arjuman Naaz 1
Describe the assessment tools and A. List of assessment processes(2)
Mrs. Afshana
processes used to gather the data Khanum
3.2.1 10
upon which the evaluation of Ms. Sufiya Begum 6
Course Outcome is based 5
B. The quality / relevance of assessment processes & tools 34
used(8)

Record the attainment of Course 28 28

Outcomes of all courses with respect
3.2. 40 Verify the attainment levels as per the bench mark set for all
to set attainment levels
2. courses(40)

Attainment of Program
3.3 50
Outcomes and Program Specific
.
Outcomes
Describe assessment tools and Mrs. Arjuman Naaz 2 4 Process of assessing the POs and PSO,
Mrs. Afshana A . List of assessment tools & processes(5) attainment lacks understanding
processes used for assessing the
3.3.1. Khanum 10
attainment of each of the Pos Ms. Sufiya Begum 2
&PSOs B. The quality/ relevance of assessment tools/processes used(5)

26
A. Verification of documents, results and level of attainment 12 22 Due to the lack of understanding PO & PSO
Provide results of evaluation of each of each attainment, documentation is not up to the more
3.3.2. 40
PO& PSO PO/PSO(50)
10
B. Overall levels of attainment (15)

Total of Criterion3: 120 Overall Marks and Grade for Criterion3: 77

Criterion 4:Students’Performance(100)
Sl. No. Sub Criteria Staff Incharge Max. Evaluation Guidelines Marks Awarded Overall Observations of Evaluators(Provide
Marks Total Marks
Marks Justifications/ Reasons)
18 18 18 CAY CAY CAY
A. >90% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis
m1 m2
during the previous three academic years starting from current
Sanctioned 180 120 120
academic year (20) intake
B. >=80% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis Students 154 116 73
enrolled at
during the previous three academic years starting from current first year
4.1. Enrolment Ratio(20) 20 academic year (18) Enrolment 0.85 0.96 0.61
level ratio
C. >=70% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis
Average 80.6%
Mrs. Hashmath during the previous three academic years starting from current enrolment
academic year (16) D. 60% students enrolled at the First ratio(ER)
D. Year Level on average basis during the previous three academic
Comments (if any):
years starting from current academic year (14) E . >=50% students
enrolled at the First

E .Year Level on average basis during the previous three academic

year from current academic year (12)

F. Otherwise 'O' years starting

Success Rate in the stipulated period Of the program
4.2. 40

02 02 02 LYG LYGm1 LYGm2

Success rate without backlogs in
SI= (Number of students who graduated from the program Success 0.10 0.10 0.03
any Semester/year of study Index
without repeat(s) in any course)/(Number of students
4.2.1. 25 admitted in the first year (SI)
WithoutBacklogmeans:Norepeat(s) Average 0.076%
ofthatbatchand actuallyadmittedin2ndyearvialateralentryan
inanycourseinanysemester/yearofs Success
dseparatedivision, if applicable)
tudy Mr. Irfan Khan Index
Average SI=Mean of success index(SI)for past three batches (SI)
Success rate without backlogs in any year of Comments (if any):
study=15×Average SI

SI=(Number of students who graduated from the program in 10 10 10 LYG LYGm1 LYGm2
the stipulated
Success 0.70 0.62 0.63
Success rate in stipulated periodofcourseduration)/(Numberofstudentsadmittedinthef Index
period(actual duration of the irstyearofthatbatchand actuallyadmittedin2ndyearvialateral (SI)
4.2.2. 15
program)[Total of with Backlog entryandseparatedivision, if applicable) Average 0.65%
+ without Backlog] Success
Mr. Irfan Khan Index
Average SI=mean of success index(SI)for past three
batches (SI)
Comments (if any): 0.65*15=9.75

Success rate = 5 × Average SI

 Academic Performance =1.5* Average API (Academic 9 9 9 Average API for past 3 years:
Performance Index) 1/3(7.2+6.5+489)=6.20

API = 3rd Year Grade Point Average a 10-point scale) ((Mean Comments (if any):
Academic Performance in Third
4.3 Mrs. Afshana of of all successful Students on or (Mean of the percentage
Year
Khanum of marks of all successful students in Third Year / 10)) x
(number of successful students/ number of students
10 appeared in the I n the examination)

Successful students are those who are permitted to

proceed to the final year.
Academic Performance in Second Academic Performance Level 1.5* Average API (Academic 9 9 9 Average API for past 3 years:
Year Performance Index) 1(4.9+6.38+6.85)=6.04

API ((Mean of 2 Year Grade Point Average of all Comments (if any):
4.4 Placement, Higher studies and successful Students on a 10-point scale) or (Mean of the
Mrs. Mumtaj
Entrepreneurship percentage of marks of all successful students in Second
Year/10)) x (number of successful students/students appeared
30
in the examination)

4.5 Placement, Higher studies and Assessment Points = 40 × average of three years of [ (x + y + 21 21 21 CAYm1 CAYm2 CAYm3
Entrepreneurship z)/N] where,
Placemen 0.61 0.72 0.24
t Index
X=NumberofstudentsplacedincompaniesorGovernmentsector Average
throughon/offcampus recruitment Placemen
Mrs. Zahara t Index for 52.33%
Amreen y=Number of students admitted to higher studies with valid past 3
qualifying scores(GATE or equivalent State or National level years
tests, GRE, GMAT etc.) Comments (if any):

z=No. of students turned entrepreneur in

engineering/technology N =Total number of final year students

4.6 Professional Activities 20

A. Availability & activities of professional 2 3 Very few activities have been organize at
Professional societies/ chapter sand national level. No professional activity at Int'l
4.6.1 societies/chapters(3)
organizing engineering events level
Mr. Irfan Khan B. Number, quality of engineering events(organized at 1
5 institute, Level-
Institute/State/National/International)(2)

1 2 Quality of Newsletter very poor. Only activities

A. Quality & Relevance of the contents and Print conducted and Students participation is week
Publication of technical magazines,
4.6.2 Material (3)
new letters ,etc. Mrs. T Venkatesh 1
B. Participation of Students from the program (2)
5
 A. Events within the state(2) 1 1 The participation of students cutsed. the state is
Participation in inter-institute B .Events outside thestate (3) NIL. There is no prize or awards won by the
Mrs. T Venkatesh 0
4.6.3 events by students of the program student. There in 3 no participation in 75 in
10 0
of study(at other institutions) B. Prizes/awards received in such events(5) Hackathon /completed
TotalofCriterion4: 100 OverallMarksandGradeforCriter 75
ion4:
Criterion 5:Faculty Information and Contributions(200)
Sl. No. Sub Criteria Staff Max.M EvaluationGuidelines MarksAwarded Overall Observations of Evaluators(Provide
Incharge arks Marks Total Marks Justifications/ Reasons)

Mrs. Afreen Banu Marks to be given proportionally from a maximum of 20 to a CAY CAYm1 CAYm2
minimum of 10 for average SFR between 15:1 to 25:1, and Total No.of 353 315 286
zero for average SFR higher than. students (1,2
25:1. Marks distribution given as below years) in PG
<=15-20 marks programs in
<=17-18 marks Dept.
Total No.of 353 315 286
<=19-16 marks
Students in
<=21-14 marks the
<=23-12 marks Department
18
<=25-10 marks UG1
>25-0 mark +UG2+...+U
Gn+
Note: All the faculty whether regular or contractual (except
PG1+PGn
5.1. Student-Faculty Ratio(SFR) 20 Part Time or hourly based), will be considered. The contractual F-Total no.of 15 22 20
faculty (doing away with the terminology of visiting/adjunct faculty
faculty, whatsoever) who have taught for 2 consecutive 18 18 members in
semesters in the corresponding academic year on full time first year
faculty)
basis shall be considered for the purpose of calculation in the
SFR
Faculty Student Ratio. However, following will be ensured in
Average SFR
case of contractual faculty: for past 3
1. Shall have the AICTE prescribed qualifications and years
.1
experience. Comments (if any):
2. Shall be appointed on full time basis and worked for
consecutive semesters during the particular academic year
under consideration.
Two= semesters during the particular academic year under
considration
3. Should have gone through an of selection the same shall
appropriate process and the records of be made available to
the visiting team during NBA visit
22
5.2. Mrs. Afreen Banu 25 CAY CAYm1 CAYm2
Faculty Cadre Proportion No. of
Professor
s
No. of
Associate
Professor
22 s
22
No. of
Assistant
Professor
s
Comments (if any):
 Mrs. Afreen Banu 16 16 16 CAY CAYm1 CAYm2
FQ=2.5x [{10X+4Y}/F]where No. of Ph.D
5.3. Faculty Qualification 25 Xisno.offacultywithPh.D.,Yisno.offacultywithM No. of M.Tech:
.Tech,Fisno.offaculty required to comply 1:20
Faculty Student ratio Faculty
(no.offacultyandno.of students requiredtobecalculatedasper5.1) Qualification
(FQ)
Average FQ for
past 3 year

Comments (if any):

Mrs. Afreen Banu 25 A. 90%ofrequiredFacultiesretained during the period of CAY CAYm1

No. of
assessment keepingCAYm2
Faculty
As base year(25) Retained
5.4 Faculty Retention B. 75%ofrequiredFacultiesretainedduringtheperiodof Total No. of
assessmentkeepingCAYm2 as base year (20) Faculty in
C. 60%ofrequiredFacultiesretainedduringtheperiodof Dept
assessmentkeepingCAYm2 as base year (15) Percentage
of faculty
D. 50%ofrequiredFacultiesretainedduringtheperiodof
retained
assessmentkeepingCAYm2 as base year (10) Average-
E. Otherwise(0) faculty
retained for
past 2 years
Comments (if any):
 A. The work must be made available on Institute Website(4) 2 11
Mrs. S Ganeshan 11 Innovations by the faculty members on TL
5.5. 20 B .The work must be available for peer review and critique (4) 2 process is not up to the mash.
Innovations by the Faculty in
Teaching and Learning
C .The work must be reproducible and developed further by 1
other scholars (2)
D .Statement of clear goals, use appropriate of methods, 6
significance of results, effective presentation and reflective
critique (10)
Mrs. S Ganeshan For each year :Assessment=3×Sum/0.5RF 14 14 14 CAY CAYm1 CAYm2
Faculty as participants in Faculty
development /training activities AverageassessmentoverpreviousthreeyearsstartingfromCAYm1 Assessment
/STTPs (Markslimitedto15) points are:
5.6. 10 Average
assessment
points for
past 3 year
Comments (if any):

5.7. Research and Development 30

A. Number of quality publications in refereed/SCI Journals, 1 2
Mr. Satish T
citations,
5.7.1. Academic Research 10 Books/Book Chapters etc.(15)
B. PhD awarde during the assessment period while working 1
in the institute
(5)
1 1
Mr. Satish T Fundedresearchfromoutside;CumulativeforCAYm1,CAYm2an
supported by dCAYm3:
5.7.2 Sponsored Research Venkatesh T 5 Amount >50 Lakh

–20Marks Amount >40 Lakhand <=

50 Lakh– 15 Marks Amount >30
Lakhand <= 40 Lakh– 10 Marks
Amount >= 15 Lakhand <= 30 Lakh–
5 Marks
Amount<15Lakh –0 Mark

A. Product Development Product development is negligent Inductions

Dr. Omar Khan materials is of very average quality
B. Research laboratories
5.7.3 Development Activities Durrani 10 5 5
C .Instructional materials
D .Working models/charts/monograms etc.
 Dr. Omar Khan Consultancy;CumulativeCumulativeforCAYm1,CAYm2and CAY CAY CAYm1 CAYm2
Durrani m3: No.of
Amount >10 Lakh projects
5.7.4. Consultancy(From Industry) 5 – Amount
20MarksAmount >= 8Lakh and <= (Rs.In
10Lakh– 15MarksAmount >= 6Lakh Lakhs)
Total
and < 8Lakh –
amount for
10 Marks Amount >= 4Lakh and < 6 past 3 years
Lakh –5 (Rs.In
Marks Amount >= 2Lakh and < 4 0 0 Lakhs)
Lakh –2 Comments (if any):
Marks Amount <2Lakh –
0 Mark

A .A well defined performance appraisal and development Performance appraisal system exists however
Mrs. Syeda 5 does not cover necessary components like resoun.
Faculty Performance Appraisal system
5.8. Muzammil 30 contribution, results etc. Also, the implementation
and Development System Instituted for all the assessment years(10)
is weak and in effective
(FPADS) B. Its implementation and effectiveness(20) 13 13
8

Provision of Visiting/Adjunct/Emeritus faculty etc.(1)

Dr. Dilshad Bagum 0
Visiting/Adjunct/Emeritus Faculty CAY CAYm1 CAYm2
5.9. 10
etc. Minimum 50 hours per year 0
No. of hours
interaction per year to obtain
three marks :3x3=9
Comments (if any):

0 0 No provision of visiting/Adjunct/
Emeritus Faculty

TotalofCriterion5: 200 Overall Marks and Grade for Criterion 5: 128

Criterion 6:Facilitie sand Technical Support (80)

Sl. No. Sub Criteria Staff Max. Evaluation Guidelines Marks Awarded Overall Observations of Evaluators(Provide
Incharge Marks Marks Justifications/ Reasons)
Marks Total

A. Adequate Well equipped labs but needs up gradation 15 23 Well equipped labs but needs up gradation
Adequate and well laboratories well-equipped to run all the program-specific 23
6.1. equipped laboratories, and 30 curriculum (20)
technical manpower B. Availability of adequate technical supporting staff 4

C. Availability of qualified technical supporting staff 4

Additional Facilities created for 25 6 15 15 Research Centre of VTU is available in the

A. Availability and relevance of additional facilities (10)
improving the quality of learning department and in utilized by the students,
6.2. experience in Laboratories 6 how ever the number of system can be
Mrs. Yasmin Taj B. Facilities utilization and effectiveness (10)
enhanced for effectiveness.
Supported by 3
C. Relevance of PO and PSO (5)
other Non
Teaching Staff 8 8 8
Laboratories: Maintenance and
6.3. 10 Maintenance and overall ambience(10)
overall ambience

2 2 2 Project laboratory next to be strengthen with

6.4. Project laboratory 5 Facilities & Utilization(10) latest computing and other infrastructure

8 8 8
6.5. Safety measures in laboratories 10 Safety measures in laboratories(5)

Total of Criterion 6: 80 Overall Marks and Grade for Criterion 6: 56

Criterion 7:Continuous Improvement(50)

Sl. No. Sub Criteria Staff In Max. Evaluation Guidelines Marks Awarded Overall Observations of Evaluators(Provide
charge Marks Marks Justifications/ Reasons)
Marks Total
Actions take on based on the A. Documentation of Pos and PSOs attainment levels(5) 3 POs and PSOs attaiment lacks under story
3
7.1. results of evaluation of each of the 20 Identification of gaps cur bridges them is missing
COs, Pos and PSOs B . Identification of gaps/shortfalls(5)
Mrs. Burhan Basha 0 3
C. Plan of action to bridge the gap and its
Implementation(10) 0
4 Academic Audit needs to be done professionally
Academic Audit and actions taken Assessmentshallbebasedonitsconductandactionstakeninrela ti by external-experts.
7.2. 10
during the period of Assessment Mrs. Burhan Basha ontocontinuous improvement (10) 4 4

A. Improvement in Placements numbers, quality, core There is increase in placement but the pay
4 6 packages are low. Very for cases of higher
Improvement in Placement, hiring industry and pay packages (5)
7.3. 10 studies and entre preneurship
Higher Studies and B. Improvement in Higher Studies admissions(3)
Mrs.Burhan Basha 1 6
Entrepreneurship
C Improvement in number of Entrepreneurs(2)
1

Assessment is based on improvement in terms of ranks/score

7
Improvement in the quality of in
7.4. 10
students admitted to the program qualifyingstatelevel/nationallevelentrancestests,percentageP
Mrs.Burhan Basha hysics,ChemistryandMathematics marks in 12th Standard 7 7
and percentage marks of the lateral
Entry students

Total of Criterion 7: 50 Overall Marks and Grade for Criterion 7: 20