Final Modified OBE Manual

JSS COLLEGE OF ARTS, COMMERCE AND SCIENCE
(Autonomous, ‘A’ Grade and College with Potential for Excellence)

Ooty Road, Mysuru-570025, Karnataka, India
Contact: 0821 – 2548236/2548380; Website: jsscacs.edu.in; E-mail: [email protected]
OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION

Manual (2022-23 Version)
Prepared by IQAC
Content
1 Vision, Mission and Objectives of the Institute ......................................................... 2

2 Outcome Based Education (OBE) Framework …. .................................................... 3
3 Composition of Executive Committee & Responsibilities………………………….4
4 Definitions of PEOs, POs, PSOs, GAs & COs……………………………………...4
5 Revised Blooms’ Taxonomy ...................................................................................... 7
6 Action Verbs for Course Outcome ............................................................................. 8
7 Guidelines for Writing Course Outcome Statements ................................................. 9
8 Quality of Course Outcomes & Validation .............................................................. 10
9 CO-PO Mapping Guidelines .................................................................................... 11
10 Setting targets for attainments & Attainment Levels ............................................ 13
11 Rubrics for Assessment ............................................................................................ 15
12 Activity Based Learning .......................................................................................... 16
13 List of Assessment Tools ......................................................................................... 17
14 Student Competency ................................................................................................ 18
15 CO Attainment Calculations .................................................................................... 19
16 Overall Attainment of POs or PSOs (Contribution of COs) .................................... 20
17 Sample Illustration: Mapping and attainment calculation…….…………………...22
18 Continuous Improvement ......................................................................................... 26
19 Documents Repository ............................................................................................. 26
20 References…………………………………………………………………………27
JSS College of Arts, Commerce and Science (Autonomous)
Preamble
Outcome-based education (OBE) is an educational theory or pedagogy that places
students at the centre of an academic program. It presupposes that by the end of a learning
session, each student would have attained a level of mastery of the course so as to be in a
position to realize on the completion of the course, a standard of achievement. The realization
of the standard in all the courses which together constitute a program is the end goal. If through
the Course outcomes (COs) in all the courses in the curriculum, certain Program outcomes
(POs) are not addressed or attained, then it is said that there are curricular gaps in achieving
the POs. These curricular gaps are addressed through co-curricular and extra-curricular
activities, which are beyond the curriculum. For success of learners through OBE the faculty
may adapt the role of trainer, facilitator, instructor, and/or mentor based on the outcomes
targeted.
In the fulfilling of the desired goal, the teacher is provided considerable latitude. Unlike
the past, OBE is a student centric approach and the teacher’s role is to facilitate, guide and
mentor.
From 2014, India has become the permanent signatory member of the Washington
Accord. Implementation of OBE in higher technical education also started in India. The
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is the autonomous body for
promoting global quality standards for technical education in India. In 2017 in its revised
accreditation framework (RAF) the NAAC has introduced the assessment of students outcomes
through OBE pattern for each program. Reports of outcome analysis help to find gaps and
carryout continuous improvements in the education system of an Institute, which is very
essential.
Benefits of OBE
Clarity: The focus on outcome creates a clear expectation of what needs to be accomplished
by the end of the course.
Flexibility: With a clear sense of what needs to be accomplished, instructors will be able to
structure their lessons around the student’s needs.
Comparison: OBE can be compared across the individual, class, batch, Program and Institute
levels.
Involvement: Students are expected to do their own learning. Increased student involvement
allows students to feel responsible for their own learning, and they should learn more through
this individual learning
1|Page
Outcome Based Education Manual
Vision
To be known as an institution providing need-based, skill-integrated, cost- effective, quality
and holistic education, transforming the students into globally competitive, employable and
responsible citizens and to be recognized as a center of excellence.
Mission
• To create and acquire relevant knowledge along with skills and global competencies
and disseminate the same among students
• To provide holistic education through relevant curricula, programmes and pedagogic
innovations focusing on employability and self-employment
• To undertake research work contributing to the creation of knowledge, skills and its
applications for sustainable development.
• To establish linkage and collaborations for the betterment of teaching, learning,
research and extension
• To provide good infrastructure, human resource and necessary support-services for
the betterment of students’ progress and welfare
• To promote national integration, human rights, universal brotherhood and community
development activities through inclusive practices.
Objectives
• To determine and prescribe its own programmes of study and syllabi, and restructure
and redesign the courses to suit local needs, make it skill oriented and in consonance
with the job requirements
• To prescribe rules for admission in consonance with the reservation policy of the state
government/national policy
• To promote research in relevant fields
• To evolve methods of assessment of students’ performance, the conduct of
examinations and notification of results
• To use modern tools of educational technology to achieve higher standards and greater
creativity; and
• To promote healthy practices such as community service, extension activities, projects
for the benefit of the society at large, neighbourhood programmes.
2|Page
OBE Framework of the Institute

JSS College of Arts, Commerce and Science, an Autonomous Institution of
University of Mysore, endeavors to proactively participate in the mission of Indian
Higher Education System to enhance the academic quality to foster quality
excellence. The objective is to elevate the competency levels of the Graduates to meet
the global demands. The meticulous and stringent educational methodology of
Outcome Based Education (OBE) is followed to enrich the student learning through
performance outcomes. The model aims to maximize student learning outcomes by
developing their skills. The OBE model supports the graduates to attain intellectual
knowledge, skills and attitudes in order to ensure the holistic learning environment with
clarity, flexibility, comparison and efficient involvement.
Scope of OBE
The OBE framework provides the guidelines to enable teaching and learning
process of the institution to attain international recognition and global employment
opportunities. It leads to enable the graduates to excel in their profession and career
accomplishments.
• The OBE guidelines are applicable to all the students and faculty members
• The guidelines laid herein are applicable to all the academic programmes,
courses, curricular activities undertaken by the members
Objectives
The objectives of the OBE policy are stated as follows:

• To design Learner Centric and Outcome-Based Curriculum.
• To define Programme Educational Objectives (PEO’s) and Graduate
Attributes in alignment with the vision and mission of the Institution.
• To define Programme Outcomes (PO’s) to achieve the graduate attributes.
• To define Programme Specific Objectives (PSO’s) and Course Outcomes
(CO’s) for all the programmes.
• To ensure the development of learner centric course content.
• To empower the facilitators to be effective in OBE Implementation.
• To state rubrics for attainment of outcomes at course and programme levels.
3|Page
OBE Executive Committee

The committee for shouldering the responsibilities of fabricating and implementing
OBE in the college is constituted. The composition is as given below.
Chief Executive : Advisor

Principal : Chairman
Senior faculty from each domain : Conveners
Controller of Examinations : Member
IQAC Representative : Member
Faculty Nominee : Coordinator
HoDs/Few Nominees : Members
Roles and Responsibilities:
• To design the policies, structure of OBE Curriculum and Evaluation of outcomes.

• Shall provide the training and guidelines to implementation of OBE.
• Monitoring of strategies for OBE and conduct annual review to ensure the
effective implementation.
• To define the Programme Educational Objectives and Graduate Attributes.
• To guide the departments to define Programme Outcomes, Programme Specific
Outcomes and Course Outcomes.
• To review the outcome attainments periodically.
• To ensure the quality assurance of the curriculum, pedagogical teaching methods
of the institutions to attain the outcomes.
Definitions:
Programme Educational Objectives (PEOs):
A set of 3 to 5 Programme Educational Objectives (PEOs) should be determined based on
the mission and vision statement of the Institution. The PEO framed statements shall
describe the student’s career and professional accomplishments within 5 years after
graduation. These are the statements that describe what the students are expected to know
or be able to do by the timethey complete an academic degree/qualification. The PEOs are
different from the students’ learning outcomes in the perspectives:
• Degree of specificity
• Role of Constituents
4|Page
• Purpose of Assessment and

• Cycles of data collection
The PEOs should be mapped with the Mission and Vision of the Institution.
Program Learning Outcome (PLOs)
The PLOs are determined based on the graduate attributes or the skills. The PLOs are
to be mapped with the PEOs and the Blooms Taxonomy of verbs. The abilities (Cognitive,
Psychomotor and Affective) that a student should be able to demonstrate at the time of
graduation. The Programme learning outcomes are description of student’s knowledge,
competencies, and value a student display at the time of completion of graduation.
Graduate Attributes (GAs)
They are the components indicative of the graduate’s potential to acquire competence
to practice at the appropriate level. GAs forms a set of individually assessable outcomes of the
programme.
S. NO. GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES

1 Subject Knowledge
2 Problem Analysis
3 Design and Development of the Solution
4 Usage of Technology
5 Application of Knowledge in Society
6 Environment and Sustainability
7 Ethics and Values
8 Individual and Team Work
9 Effective Communication
10 Life Long Learning Ability
11 Culture, Patriotism and International Outlook
12 Positive Attitude and Open Mindedness
Programme Specific Outcome (PSOs)
The programme specific outcomes (PSOs) are the statements about what the
students should be able to do at the time of graduation. The PSO’s are programme specific
and are written by the department which is offering the programme.
5|Page
Programme Outcome (POs)

Program outcomes are specific statements outlining the skills and abilities students
should possess upon graduation. These outcomes should closely align with Graduate
Attributes.
Course Outcome (COs)

Depending upon the graduate attributes and the mapping of PLOs, the Course
Learning Outcomes will be framed. The Course Learning outcome should follow the
Blooms Taxonomy of verbs. Specific statements of what the students are expected to
achieve at the end of the course. The course curriculum is measurable, observable and
clearly indicates what a student should know and be able to do as a result of learning. The
course learning outcome should satisfy the following conditions:
• Each course will address three to four CO statements

• Should be mapped Learning domains of Blooms or other Taxonomy of verbs
• There should be one to one mapping with the CO and PO statement. i.e. One
CO should be mapped with One PO
• Expressed in terms of measurable and achievable form
• There should be an action Verb + Standard or Verb + Condition or Verb +
Standard + Condition.
• Multiple PO, CO and taxonomy of verbs should not be reflected in a single

CO statement.
The implementation of an outcomes-based education, which promotes the practice of

constructive alignment between outcomes, learning activities and assessment tools needs an
environment where all stakeholders (teachers, students and the institutions) are engaged in the
process of transformative reflection and constant action. Each of these participants reflects in
interaction with the others in three domains: teacher and student, teacher and institution, student
and institution that would have built-in quality enhancement and mechanisms for not only
assuring quality but for enhancing quality. The overall OBE framework developed in our
HEIS is given in below scheme.
6|Page
Scheme: OBE framework in the institute

Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
Bloom’s taxonomy is a popularly adopted framework for categorizing educational
goals. These are widely used in teaching, learning and assessment, to make students go through
various levels incognitive domain of learning. According to revised Bloom’s taxonomy, the
levels in cognitive domain are as follows:
1. Remembering: Recalling from memory of previously learned material.
2. Understanding: Explaining ideas or concepts.
3. Applying: Using information in another familiar situation.
4. Analyzing: Breaking information into part to explore understandings and relationships.
5. Evaluating: Justifying a decision or course of action.
6. Creating: Generating new ideas, products or new ways of viewing things.
7|Page
Bloom’s Taxonomy is hierarchical, meaning that learning at the higher level requires
that skills at lower level are attained.
Action Verbs for Course Outcomes

Sample Action Verbs
Lower Order of Thinking (LOT) Higher Order of Thinking (HOT)

Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create
Define Explain Solve Analyze Reframe Design
Describe Describe Apply Compare Criticize Create
List Interpret Illustrate Classify Judge Plan
State Summarize Calculate Distinguish Recommend Formulate
Match Compare Sketch Explain Grade Invent
Tabulate Discuss Prepare Differentiate Measure Develop
Record Estimate Chart Appraise Test Organize
Label Express Choose Conclude Evaluate Produce
Illustration (use of action verb with respect to knowledge dimension and order of thinking):
Use of action Factual Conceptual Procedural Meta cognitive

verbs
List properties Recognize characteristic Explain working Identify strategies
Remember (K1) of soil of material of pump for report writing
Summarize Classify adhesives Explain assembly Predict the
Understand (K2) features of a by toxicity. instructions. behavior of
new product. member
Solve the Illustrate composition of Carry out pH Use modern
Apply (K3) following and tests of water techniques to get
arrive to vale of soils.
samples. solution
energy.
Explain the Differentiate Integrate Assess
Analyse (K4)
selection of LOT and HOT compliance The project work
tool/activity with
. regulations.
Select the Determine relevance Judge efficiency of Reflect on one's
Evaluate (K5) appropriate tool of results. sampling techniques. progress.
Generate a Assemble a team of Design efficient Create a learning
Create (K6)
log of experts. project work portfolio.
daily flow.
activities.
8|Page
The cognitive process dimensions categories

Lower Order of Thinking (LOT) Higher Order of Thinking (HOT)
Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create
Recognizing Interpreting Executing Differentiating Checking Planning
(identifying) Illustrating Implementing Organizing (coordinating Generating
Classifying Attributing , detecting, Producing
Recalling(re Summarizing testing, (constructing)
trieving) Inferring monitoring)
(concluding) Critiquing
Comparing (judging)
Explaining
Guidelines for Writing of Course Outcome Statements

COs are written by involving:
• Action verb
• Subject content
• Level of achievement as in BTL
• Modes of performing task (Optional if applicable)
Some examples with illustration for writing COs:
After successful completion of this course students will be able to:
• Design a procedure to separate organic acids and bases. Action verb

(underlined)
• Determine the purity of real samples. Subject content
• Use chromatography tools to a competent Level. BTL
• Present the applications of chromatographs for real life problems. Modes of
performing task with action verb(underlined)
While writing CO’s the following questions/points must be addressed
properly.
Specific Is there a description of precise behaviour and the
situation it will be performed in? Is it concrete, detailed,
focused and defined?
Measurable Can the performance of the outcome be observed and measured?
With a reasonable number of efforts and application can the
Achievable outcome be achieved? Are you attempting too much?
Is the outcome important or worthwhile to the learner or
Relevant stakeholder? Is it possible to achieve this outcome?
Is there a time limit, rate, number, percentage or frequency
Time-Bound clearly stated? When will this outcome be accomplished?
Note: COs are to be written separately for practical courses.
9|Page
Number of COs 2 to 4
Action Verb, Subject Content, Level of Achievement, Modes
CO essentials of Performing task (If Applicable)
Based on BTL Understand, Remember, Apply, Analyse, Evaluate, Create
Number of BTL Minimum 3
Considered in one course
Technical Content/ point All curriculum contents are covered
of curriculum
Curriculum gap Additional CO for gap identified/filling. Adds more
weightage
Quality of COs to be validated!!!!

Process to be followed at department level to maintain quality of CO:
10 | P a g e
CO-PO Mapping Guideline

Consider Any Two Minimum Criteria for CO-PO Mapping Justification
I. Contact Hours: Lecture, Tutorial and Practical:

Level Contact Hours in Percentage (including Lecture,
Tutorial & Practical)
No mapping(-) <5%
Low(1) 5-15%
Medium(2) 15-25%
High(3) >25%
Description: Number of Lectures = 3 per week × 12 weeks = 36 Hours (Theory)

OR
Number of Practicals = 2 per week × 4h ×12 weeks = 96 Hours (Practicals)
OR
10 Lectures h (Th) + 1 x 12 h (Tut) h + 2 x 2 x 12 h (Prac) = 70 Hours (L:T:P)
Course
Examples:
1. Let, CO1 related points are engaged in 8 lectures of theory paper,
Therefore, contact h in percentage = (8/36) x 100 = 22.22 % (Medium Mapping: 2).
2. Let a course of 70 h has a CO related to 8 h of Lectures + 4 h of Tutorials + 26 h
of Practicals,
Then, contact h in percentage = (38/70)*100 = 54.2% (High Mapping : 3)
II. Number of Assessment Tools used:
Level Assessment tools used to assess the CO

No mapping (-) 0
Low (1) 1 or 2
Medium (2) 3
High (3) 4 or more
Description
CO assessment tools→ Mid-term test, end term test, class test, oral, Continuous internal
assessment (Assignment, Lab practical assessment), course exit survey, University theory
exam, OE/POE, external feedback, Activities (Survey, guest lecture, workshop, seminar, case
studies, mini/minor projects etc. Every CO must be correlated with each PO and appropriate
mapping may be selected.
11 | P a g e
III. Key words: Appropriate keyword is sufficient for mapping.

Level Keywords Used in writing CO’s
No mapping (-) Keywords related with LOT and not related with
course or any outcomes
Low (1) Part of PO is reflected through keywords/action verbs
Major part of PO is reflected through keywords/action
Medium (2) verbs + moderate level performance is expected from
student to achieve PO
Exact action verb of PO + critical performance expected from
High (3) student to achieve PO
CO-PO Mapping (Guidelines) & CO Attainment Calculations
The effective implementation of OBE is complete with mapping and attainment

level of computation.
• Course Outcomes shall be mapped with Programme Outcomes.

• One CO may be mapped with more than one PO and vice versa.
• It must be ensured that all CO’s are sufficient to measure the attainment level
of PO’s.
• The attainment must be measured at each programme and course level.
The Following template shall be used to implement the mapping of CO with PO and
PSO:
CO-PO MAPPING
PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 PSO4 PSO5
CO1 3 − 2 − 1 3 2 3 3 3
CO2 1 3 − 1 − 2 3 3 3 3
CO3 − 2 − 3 1 3 3 2 3 3
CO4 − − 1 − 3 2 2 3 2 3
CO5 − 1 3 2 − 2 2 2 2 2
WT.AVG 2 2 2 2 1.67 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.8
OVERALL MAPPING OF SUBJECT 2.247
12 | P a g e
Setting targets for attainments

The following chart illustrates the means for setting the attainment
targets.
Illustration of the above chart for attainment targets:

Avg %
Case of Clue for keeping Attainment Attainment Attainment
result in last
Course target 1 if 2 if 3 if
year/ 3
years
40 % cross 50% cross 60% cross
Course 1 <40 % Threshold
target target target
Above 40% Threshold with high 60 % cross 70% cross 80% cross
Course 2 but attainment level target target target
less than 50%
40 % cross 50% cross 60% cross
Course 3 Above 50 % Average based
target target target
Average based with 60 % cross 70% cross 80% cross
Course 4 Above 80%
high attainment target target target
level
Let, be assumed for instance the scores obtained by students and corresponding mapping
in the table below:
13 | P a g e
DISTRIBUTION %
CO
3( HIGH) 2(MEDIUM) 1(LOW)
No. of Total No. of Total No. of Total

Students No. of Studs. No. of Students No. of
Attained Studs. % Attained Studs. % Attained Studs. %
CO1 54 60 90 6 60 10 0 60 0
CO2 54 60 90 6 60 10 0 60 0
CO3 57 60 95 3 60 5 0 60 0
CO4 57 60 95 2 60 3.33 1 60 1.67
CO5 56 60 93.33 2 60 3.33 2 60 3.33
3 70 % of Students above 50%

Rubrics 2 60 % of Students above 50%
1 50 % of Students above 50%
Attainment through assessments:

Let the assessment through Tests and Assignment:
CO CODE TEST1 TEST2 Assignment INTERNALS ESE
for 3
CO1 3 0 3 3 3
CO2 3 0 2 2.67 3
CO3 0 3 3 3 3
CO4 0 3 2 2.67 3
CO5 0 0 3 3 3
INTERNAL/UNIV ATTAINMENTS 2.9 3
Weightage 30% 70%
Corresponding attainment: 30% of 2.9 for Internal Assessment = 0.30*2.9 = 0.87
75% of ESE = 0.70 * 3 = 2.10
Final Subject CO attainment 0.87 + 2.10 = 2.97
PO ATTAINMENT USING CO ATTAINMENTS (DIRECT METHOD):

CO1 3 − 2 − 1 3 2 3 3 3
CO2 1 3 − 1 − 2 3 3 3 3
CO3 − 2 − 3 1 3 3 2 3 3
CO4 − − 1 − 3 2 2 3 2 3
CO5 − 1 3 2 − 2 2 2 2 2
WT.AVG 2 2 2 2 1.67 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.8
PO
ATTAINMENT 1.98 1.98 1.98 1.98 1.65 2.38 2.38 2.57 2.57 2.77
USING CO
(DIRECT
METHOD)*
*PO Attainment = WT.AVG/3 * 2.97
14 | P a g e
Rubrics for Assessment
Rubric is a scoring guide with criteria for evaluating students’ work in direct
relation to one or more of the PO’s and a rating scale indicating differing levels of
performance.
Rubrics are:
• Used to examine how well students have met CO or PO rather than how
well they perform compared to their peers.
• Typically include measurable descriptors that define expectations at each level
of performance for each criterion.
Sample Rubrics for CO assessment in Laboratory: (10 Marks)
Performance Levels
Category
3 marks 2 marks 1 marks
• Able to • Able to perform • able to perform
perform experiment the experiment
Performance in experiment within
Lab independently prescribed time
within • Large deviation of
prescribed time result from standard
• The result is close value
or to standard
value.
• able to show • partially show • lack of
strong theoretical strong theoretical theoretical
Level of background of background of background of
Understanding/ experiment experiment experiment or
Q&A • able to interpret • * Partially able to lack of
proper data to interpret data to interpretation of
reach reach conclusion. data
conclusion
Documentation Level
4 marks 3 marks 2 marks
• Graphs, table, • Shortfalls found in • Report
contents are any of the contents of submitted but
well the report viz. graphs, not written
constructed. tables, calculations, properly.
Quality of • All-important results, conclusions.
Submission calculations Comments etc.
and result
have been
clearly made.
• Conclusions/
observations/
comments
15 | P a g e
done clearly
Rubric maximum score = 4+3+3 (high marks) = 10 (100%)

Rubric minimum score = 1+1+2 (low marks) = 4 (40%)
Sample Rubrics for Individual & Team Work

Rubric Level of Performance
Category
4 3 2 1
Seeks Will take lead if Resists taking on Never
Group opportunities group insists; leadership role; shows up
Leader to lead; in not good at while leading
leader is being attentive allows uneven
attentive to to each member contributions
each member
Always Sometimes Rarely Never
contributes; contributes; contributes; shows up
Contribution quality of quality of contributions are
contributions contributions is often peripheral
is exceptional fair or irrelevant;
frequently misses
team sessions
Always cooperative cooperative with Non-
cooperative with members, few members, cooperative
Cooperation with all but sometimes and resist most of
members, resist time
support good
initiatives
Activity based learning
Learning by:
• Individually
• Solving problems
• Questioning and answering
• Doing hands-on
• Team work
16 | P a g e
Some of the Examples:

MOOCs, Flipped Classroom, Round Robin, Collaborative Learning, Puzzle, Matrix Method,
Peer-Learning, Work-Based Learning, Problem-Based Learning, Personalized Learning,
Group Discussion, and Debate, Case Studies etc.
Assessment Tools
All (Direct + Indirect) CO assessment tools = PO Direct assessment tools
Some mention of sample CO assessment Tools:
• Mid Term Test
• End Term Test
• Quiz
• Assignment
• Practical/ Lab work
• Industrial Visit, Workshop
• Other Task/Activity
• End Semester Examination
• Viva
• Course Exit Survey
• External Feedback (External Examiner/Trainer, Campus Placement Technical
Expert)
Direct Tools: Assessment by faculty in the HEI (for CO with marks)
Indirect Tools: Assessment not in terms of Marks w.r.t CO
Indirect Attainment Calculation
The feedback from the following aspects are used as rubrics:

• Current Passing out Students
• Stakeholders
• Alumni
• Survey from Employer of Alumni
The questions in the survey sheet represented the PO’. All these survey needs to be a quantified
one (1, 2, 3) and there must be based on predefined levels like Rubric’s defined for direct
calculation. Sample rubrics are facilitated below.
Rubrics for Attainment Calculation
60% People are giving above 3 – 1 (LOW)

70% People are giving above 3 – 2 (MEDIUM)
80% People are giving above 3 – 3 (HIGH)
17 | P a g e
Indirect Attainment
Survey
Current Passing out
students 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 1
Alumni 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 3 2
Survey from placement 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 1
Cell
Indirect PO Attainment 3 2.33 2.67 2.33 2.67 2 2.33 2 2.33 1.33
Student Competency
Base Score for Student Category
1) <50% - Slow Learner
2) 50% to 65% - Average Learner
3) >65% - Advanced Learner
Strategies for Slow, Average and Advanced Learners
For Slow learners
➢ Document/record of remedial classes with timetable & attendance
➢ Specially designed assignment/ task
➢ Student study group for peer-to-peer learning
➢ Individual Counselling
➢ Student help desk

Note: For the benefit of slow learners the remedial sessions should be conducted once in a
week.
For Average Learners
➢ Additional assignment/ task

➢ Encouraging for timely and effective completion of work
➢ Conduction of quiz, orals etc.
➢ Solving previous year question papers and test papers
➢ Presentation on technical topics/ case studies/mini projects
Note: Activities should be on continuous basis.
For Advanced Learners
➢ Encouraging to present & publish papers in Journals/Conferences/Competitions
➢ Guidance for NET/SET/GATE/ o r o t h e r competitive Examination
➢ Encouraging participating in professional activities.
➢ Specially designed activities to improve the portfolio of students.
➢ Individual guidance for career building
Note: Activities should be on continuous basis.
18 | P a g e
Attainment of CO: Calculations

Attainment weightage may be given as follows:
PO attainment
Direct: 80%; Indirect: 20%
Consider PO Assessment tools = CO Assessment tools (both direct and indirect methods)
Illustration of Internal Test Examination Attainment:
Course Essentials of analytical

chemistry
Maximum Marks 30
Number of Students Appeared 60
Passing Level (Threshold Based Target) 12 (40% of 30)
Assume from the list of the marks secured by all students it may be found that:
Number of students scored 12 or more marks 28
% of students achieving 12 or more marks (28/60)*100 = 46.6%
The Attainment levels are:

1 – if 40 % students score more than target
Then Attainment is = 1 (from 46.6%)
Illustration of Feedback/Rubric Based Assessment &Attainment:

Course Essentials of analytical chemistry
Maximum marks 5
Number of students appeared 60
Passing level (Average Based Target) 3 (>50% here)
Number of students scored 3 or more score 37

% of students with 3 or more marks (37/60)*100 = 61.7%
Attainment levels are:
Then attainment is = 3 (from 61.7%)
Overall Attainment of CO
Assume that CO1 is assessed using any 2 direct + 2 Indirect CO assessment tools
19 | P a g e
Then,
Overall CO Attainment = (Weightage × Direct CO attainment)
+
(Weightage × Indirect CO attainment)
If the weightage for Indirect CO attainment is 20% (for both UG and PG programmes),
Overall CO Attainment = (0.8 × Direct CO attainment) + (0.2 × Indirect CO attainment)
where 0.8 and 0.2 are from 80 and 20% weightage for direct and indirect attainments.
Note: Percent weightage may be fixed in any number (as 80:20/90:10/70:30/75:25 etc) after
deliberation in the department for programs.
Overall Attainment of POs or PSOs (Contribution of COs)

The overall attainment of POs or PSOs are obtained by using average mapping
strength of individual PO to CO or PSO to CO, maximum mapping strength of 3 and average
attainment of COs. The following formula is used to calculate it:
PO/PSO attainment = Attainment of COAvg × Factor of Scale
Factor of Scale = Obtained mapping strength/ Maximum mapping strength
= Obtained mapping strength/3
Illustration 1:
PO COs Mapping PO/PSO Attainment= Factor of Scale ×
Strength Attainment of COAvg in % (or for weightage 3)
PO1 CO1, CO3 1 (1/3)[(63+67)/2] = 22
PO2 CO3 1 1/3 (67) = 22
PO3 CO4, CO5, CO6 3 3/3 [(68+63+67)/3] = 66
PO4 CO4, CO5, CO6 3 3/3 [(68+63+67)/3] = 66
PO5 CO4, CO5, CO6 3 3/3 [(68+63+67)/3] = 66
PO10 CO1, CO2 1 (1/3)[(63+67)/2] = 22
PSO1 All the 6 COs 3 3/3 [(63+67+67+68+63+67)/6] = 66
Illustration 2:
Let us assume CO-PO mapping of course (Before assessment or commencement of
classes) in the following table.
PO PSO
CO
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3
1 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 - 2 1 - - - - - - - - - 3 - -
3 - 3 1 - - - - - - - - - 3 - -
4 - 3 - 2 - - - - - - - 1 3 - -
Average = 3 3 1 2 - - - - - - - 1 3 - -
Mapping
Strength
20 | P a g e
The maximum mapping strength = 3 (High) for all the cases
Overall Attainment of COs after assessment: (with 80% direct and 20% indirect assessment)
Overall CO
CO Direct Attainment (A) Indirect Attainment (B)
Attainment
= 0.8 × A + 0.2 × B
1 2 3 2.8
2 3 3 3
3 2 3 2.8
4 1 3 2.6
Hence, final CO to PO attainment is calculated as described before and summarized below:

PO PSO
CO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3
1 2.80 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 - 2.00 1.00 - - - - - - - - - 3.00 - -
3 - 2.80 0.93 - - - - - - - - - 2.80 - -
4 - 2.60 - 1.73 - - - - - - - 0.87 2.60 - -
Average 2.80 2.50 0.96 1.73 - - - - - - - 0.86 2.80 - -
%Attainment 93.3 83.3 32.0 57.6 - - - - - - - 28.6 93.3 - -
21 | P a g e
Sample Illustration: Mapping and attainment calculation
70 3 Threshold % for attainment 40 IT IS COMPULSORY TO ENTER THE NAME OF

ATTAINMENT
60 2 10 CO PASSING MARKS OUT OF 100 40 STUDENT
CRITERIA
50 1 10 Please fill "AB" for Absent and "UR" for Unregistered candidate(s)
JSS College of Arts, Commerce and Science, Ooty Road, Mysuru

Faculty
Name: Dr. N Rajendraprasad Program MSc SUBJECT Chemistry
Prog MSc YEAR I SEM 1 COURSE CODE 21CHA13 SESSION 2022-23
Attainment for Tests & End Semester Examination (ESE)
Reg. No.
I Test II Test ESE CO1 CO2 CO3 CO4 CO5 ΣCO

S. No.
Name of Student
CO1 CO2 CO3 CO4 CO5 CO1 CO2 CO3 CO4 CO5 MM % % % % % %
CO WISE MAXIMUM MARKS 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 80 100 100 100 100 100 100
1 JHCE2201 ABHISHEK SUBRAY SHET 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 56.00 33.33 50.00 100.00 100.00 66.67 70.00
2 JHCE2202 AFIYA TANZEM 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 65.00 33.33 75.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 71.67
3 JHCE2203 AISHWARYA N R 1.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 25.00 33.33 100.00 60.00 100.00 33.33 65.33
4 JHCE2204 AKSHATHA N K 1.00 3.50 1.00 1.50 1.00 4.00 60.00 33.33 87.50 50.00 50.00 66.67 57.50
5 JHCE2205 AMEER SUHAIL H 2.00 4.00 0.00 2.00 1.50 3.50 24.00 66.67 100.00 40.00 75.00 58.33 68.00
6 JHCE2206 AMRUTHA K S 2.00 2.50 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 56.00 66.67 62.50 60.00 50.00 50.00 57.83
7 JHCE2207 ANANYA H B 2.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 4.50 43.00 66.67 62.50 70.00 100.00 75.00 74.83
8 JHCE2208 ANUSHA C 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 5.00 52.00 100.00 75.00 70.00 100.00 83.33 85.67
9 JHCE2209 ANUSHA R 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 4.50 54.00 66.67 50.00 70.00 100.00 75.00 72.33
10 JHCE2210 APOORVA SANDHYA 1.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 3.00 65.00 50.00 50.00 90.00 100.00 50.00 68.00
11
12
13
22 | P a g e
ABSENTEE+NOT ATTEMPT 0 0 0 0 0 0
OVERALL ATTAIMENT
ATTAINMENT TABLE
PRESENT STUDENT OR
1 Attainment through internal assessment: 2.13 10 10 10 10 10 10
ATTEMPT
NO. OF STUDENTS SECURE
2 Attainment through end semester examination: 3.00 MARKS > THRESHOLD 8 6 10 10 10 9
MARKS
% OF STUDENTS SECURE
3 Weightage given to the Internal examination (30%): 0.64 MARKS > THRESHOLD 80.00 60.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00
MARKS
Attainment (3 ≥ 70%, 2
4 Weightage given to the End semester examination (70%): 2.10 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
≥60%, 1 ≥ 50%)
Final attainment level CO (by Direct 2.70 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
5 Final attainment level of the course (by Direct Assessment): 2.74
Assessment):
23 | P a g e

FACULTY NAME: Dr. N. Rajendraprasad
Programme MSc in Chemistry SESSION: 2022-23
COURSE: Essentials of Analytical Chemistry YEAR: I SEMESTER: 1
SUBJECT: CHEMISTRY SUBJECT CODE: MCHE
PO ATTAINMENT USING CO (DIRECT METHOD)
CO PO MAPPING
PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 PSO4 PSO5
CO1 1 2 3 - - - - - - - - 2 2 2 2
CO2 2 2 - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -
CO3 3 - - 2 3 - - - - - - 3 2 - -
CO4 - - 2 3 2 - - - - - - 3 2 - -
CO5 - - 3 3 3 - - - - - - - - - -
WT. AVG 2.00 2.00 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Overall Mapping of Subject 2.25
24 | P a g e
CO - PO-PSO ATTAINMENT
PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 PO10 PSO1 PSO2 PSO3 PSO4 PSO5 ATT
CO1 0.90 1.60 2.70 1.80 1.60 1.80 1.60 2.70
CO2 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00
CO3 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
CO4 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
CO5 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
AVG 1.97 1.80 2.57 2.67 2.67 2.20 1.87 1.80 1.60
Overall Attainment of Subject 2.13
25 | P a g e
To be chalked out and implemented for continuous improvement
1. Attainments at > 2.5 for 3: Set higher targets for next year
2. Attainments at < 2.5 for 3: Record observation, work out plan to improve it w.r.t gaps
3. Attainments are Very poor/Not attained: Revise action plan and work out for better
performance
4. PO Attainments high: Work for further HOTS
5. POs not attained: Prepare and implement plan for immediate effect for improvement
6. Activities: Critical assessment, impact analysis to be done and revise as per the need
for improvements
Documents Repository
1. Vision & Mission of institute and programme
2. PEO of Program, PEO-PO/PSO mapping
3. COs, POs and PSOs of Programme
4. CO-PO/PSO mapping
5. Revised Blooms Taxonomy Level OBE framework
6. List of courses with codes
7. List of PO & CO assessment tools used
8. Course and Module Coordinators’ details
9. Course curriculum and plan of delivery
10. Attainments levels and targets of all targets of courses
11. Rubrics
12. Assessment records
13. Documents on Slow and advanced learners
14. Exit survey docs and feedback
15. CO & PO attainment reports
16. Impact analysis of continuous assessments
******
26 | P a g e
References
1. Anderson, Lorin W & Krathwohl, David R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives, Allyn and
Bacon, ISBN 978-0-8013-1903-7.
2. Aoife Ahern, Caroline Dominguez, Ciaran McNally, John J. O'Sullivan & Daniela
Pedrosa (2019). A literature review of critical thinking in engineering education, Studies
in Higher E d u c a t i o n , 4 4 : 5 , 8 1 6 - 8 2 8 , D O I : 10.1080/03075079.2019.1586325
3. Examination reforms by AICTE-India:
https://www.aicte- india.org/sites/default/files/ExaminationReforms.pdf.
4. Huhta, Ari (2010). Diagnostic and Formative Assessment. In Spolsky, Bernard & Hult,
Francis M. The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Oxford, UK, Blackwell. pp. 469–
482.
5. Jandhyala N Murthy (2012). Assessment Practices in Engineering – A Review, The
Journal of Engineering Education, Vol.No.XXV-3, ISSN: 0971-5843.
6. Lavanya C, Jandhyala N Murthy, Satyanarayana Kosaraju, Chapter 4 (Feb 2020),
Assessment Practices in Outcome-Based Education: Evaluation Drives Education in
Methodologies and Outcomes of Engineering and Technological Pedagogy by IGI
Global, pp 50-61, DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2245-5.ch004.
7. Lorna M. Earl (2003). Assessment as Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to
Maximize Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, California, Corwin Press, Inc.
8. Lavanya C, Jandhyala N Murthy. (2022) Assessment and Attainment of Course
Outcomes and Program Outcomes. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations
Volume 35 , No. 4, 2022, 104-111.
9. William G Spady (1994). Outcome-Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers.
American Association of School Administrators, Arlington, ISBN 0876521839.
10. https://www.mitmuzaffarpur.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/ppt-co-po-attainment-
JNJ.pdf
11. https://coek.dypgroup.edu.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/DYP-OBE-Manual.pdf.
12. Kaliannan, Maniam; Chandran, Suseela Devi (2012). "Empowering Students through
Outcome-Based Education (OBE)". Research in Education. 87 (1): 50–63.
13. Butler, Mollie (2004). OUTCOMES BASED/ OUTCOMES FOCUSED EDUCATION
OVERVIEW
14. Kennedy, Kerry (2011). "Conceptualising quality improvement in higher education:
policy, theory and practice for outcomes based learning in Hong Kong". Journal of
27 | P a g e
Higher Education Policy & Management. 33 (3): 205–218.

15. Killen, Roy (2007). Teaching Strategies for Outcomes-based Education, Second
Edition. Cape Town: Juta and Company Ltd. p. 48.
16. Allais, Stephanie (2007). "Education service delivery: the disastrous case of outcomes-
based qualifications frameworks". Progress in Development Studies. 7 (1): 65–78.
17. https://maryourhelp-cebu.edu.ph/index.php/outcome-based-education-obe-framework/
18. Gurukkal, R. (2020). Outcome-Based Education: An Open Framework. Higher
Education for the Future, 7(1), 1–4.
19. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives: complete edition.
Addison Wesley Longman, Inc..
28 | P a g e

Final Modified OBE Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Modified OBE Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Modified OBE Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JSS COLLEGE OF ARTS, COMMERCE AND SCIENCE

(Autonomous, ‘A’ Grade and College with Potential for Excellence)

OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION

1 Vision, Mission and Objectives of the Institute ......................................................... 2

OBE Framework of the Institute

The objectives of the OBE policy are stated as follows:

OBE Executive Committee

Chief Executive : Advisor

Roles and Responsibilities:

• To design the policies, structure of OBE Curriculum and Evaluation of outcomes.

• Purpose of Assessment and

Program Learning Outcome (PLOs)

Graduate Attributes (GAs)

S. NO. GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES

Programme Specific Outcome (PSOs)

Programme Outcome (POs)

Course Outcome (COs)

• Each course will address three to four CO statements

• Multiple PO, CO and taxonomy of verbs should not be reflected in a single

The implementation of an outcomes-based education, which promotes the practice of

Scheme: OBE framework in the institute

Action Verbs for Course Outcomes

Lower Order of Thinking (LOT) Higher Order of Thinking (HOT)

Use of action Factual Conceptual Procedural Meta cognitive

The cognitive process dimensions categories

Guidelines for Writing of Course Outcome Statements

• Design a procedure to separate organic acids and bases. Action verb

Note: COs are to be written separately for practical courses.

Quality of COs to be validated!!!!

CO-PO Mapping Guideline

I. Contact Hours: Lecture, Tutorial and Practical:

Description: Number of Lectures = 3 per week × 12 weeks = 36 Hours (Theory)

II. Number of Assessment Tools used:

Level Assessment tools used to assess the CO

III. Key words: Appropriate keyword is sufficient for mapping.

CO-PO Mapping (Guidelines) & CO Attainment Calculations

The effective implementation of OBE is complete with mapping and attainment

• Course Outcomes shall be mapped with Programme Outcomes.

OVERALL MAPPING OF SUBJECT 2.247

Setting targets for attainments

Illustration of the above chart for attainment targets:

No. of Total No. of Total No. of Total

3 70 % of Students above 50%

Attainment through assessments:

PO ATTAINMENT USING CO ATTAINMENTS (DIRECT METHOD):

*PO Attainment = WT.AVG/3 * 2.97

Rubrics for Assessment

Rubric maximum score = 4+3+3 (high marks) = 10 (100%)

Sample Rubrics for Individual & Team Work

Activity based learning

Some of the Examples:

Indirect Attainment Calculation

The feedback from the following aspects are used as rubrics:

Rubrics for Attainment Calculation

60% People are giving above 3 – 1 (LOW)

➢ Specially designed assignment/ task

➢ Student study group for peer-to-peer learning

➢ Student help desk

➢ Additional assignment/ task

Attainment of CO: Calculations

PO Attainment = WT.AVG/3 2.97