DOCUMENT CONTROL AND INDEX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND SCOPE

1. INTRODUCTION

Outcome-Based Education (OBE) directs curriculum, teaching, assessment and improvement towards demonstrable graduate competencies. This policy establishes a common institutional method for defining outcomes, mapping Course Outcomes to Knowledge and Attitude Profiles, Program Outcomes and Program Specific Outcomes, calculating attainment, setting targets, identifying gaps and recording continuous improvement.

2. PURPOSE

To ensure that outcome statements, mappings, assessments and attainment reports are educationally valid, mathematically consistent, auditable and used for genuine curriculum and teaching improvement.

3. SCOPE

All undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, courses, theory and laboratory assessment, projects, internships, value-added learning, surveys, OBE committees, COE processes and LMS/analytics systems used for outcome mapping and attainment.

OBJECTIVES

4. OBJECTIVES

• Define clear PEOs, POs, PSOs, WKs and measurable COs aligned with programme intent and applicable accreditation requirements.
• Create rational, justified and reviewable outcome mappings rather than uniform or inflated matrices.
• Align assessment instruments and rubrics to the intended cognitive level and outcome.
• Calculate direct and indirect attainment from approved source data with transparent formulas and exclusions.
• Set evidence-based targets and use attainment gaps to drive continuous improvement.
• Automate reliable calculations through the LMS while preserving human academic approval and audit trails.

POLICY FRAMEWORK

5. GUIDING PRINCIPLES

1. Outcome quality begins with valid curriculum and assessment design, not with attainment arithmetic.
2. Mapping strength shall represent demonstrated contribution and shall be supported by content and assessment evidence.
3. Original marks and assessment records shall remain unchanged; attainment is a derived analytical result.
4. Targets shall be challenging, stable for the assessment cycle and changed only through approved prospective review.
5. No single survey or examination shall be treated as complete proof of a complex programme outcome.
6. Continuous improvement requires implemented action and subsequent evidence, not only meeting minutes.

6. GENERAL POLICY COMMITMENT

The Institution shall implement this policy through approved roles, adequate resources, documented procedures, transparent communication and measurable review. Decisions and exceptions shall be recorded and authorized by the competent authority.

OBE ARCHITECTURE AND DEFINITIONS

COURSE OUTCOMES AND MAPPING

7.1 CO DESIGN

• Each CO shall contain a measurable action, knowledge/skill context and expected level.
• COs shall collectively cover the approved course purpose and major syllabus components.
• The number of COs shall be manageable for assessment and reporting.
• Laboratory, project and internship COs shall use performance evidence and rubrics where appropriate.

7.2 MAPPING RULES

• Correlation levels 1, 2 and 3 shall mean low, moderate and high contribution under the approved institutional rubric.
• Blank or “–” means no demonstrable contribution.
• Every mapping shall be justified by content, learning activity and assessment evidence.
• Departments shall prevent blanket mapping of every CO to every PO/WK/PSO.
• Mappings shall be reviewed when curriculum, assessment or the accreditation framework changes.

ASSESSMENT DESIGN AND CO ATTAINMENT

7.3 ASSESSMENT BLUEPRINT

Before conduct, every significant assessment shall identify CO, marks, cognitive level, question/task type and moderation status. Rubrics shall define observable performance levels for projects, laboratories, presentations, design and professional competencies.

7.4 DIRECT ATTAINMENT

• Source marks shall come from approved examination and LMS records.
• The threshold method may calculate the percentage of eligible students meeting the approved performance threshold for each CO.
• Multiple assessments mapped to the same CO shall be combined using approved weights based on marks and relevance.
• Absence, malpractice, exemption and incomplete records shall be handled through documented rules.
• Marks shall never be changed merely to improve attainment.

7.5 INDIRECT ATTAINMENT

Course-end, exit, alumni, employer or other surveys may support outcome evaluation. Survey questions shall be mapped, understandable, non-leading and supported by adequate response rates. Indirect evidence shall supplement, not replace, direct assessment.

WK, PO AND PSO ATTAINMENT

7.6 AGGREGATION

• CO attainment shall be the primary input to course-level outcome analysis.
• WK attainment shall be derived from relevant CO attainment and approved CO–WK mapping weights.
• PO/PSO attainment shall be derived using the approved mapping and aggregation method, with direct and indirect components reported separately before combination.
• The calculation method, weights, rounding, minimum data and treatment of missing evidence shall be approved before the cycle.
• Reports shall permit tracing from PO/PSO result back to WK, CO, assessment and source marks.

TARGET SETTING, GAP ANALYSIS AND CQI

7.7 TARGETS

• Targets may consider previous performance, programme maturity, benchmark data and improvement priorities.
• Targets shall be approved before analysing the current cycle and shall not be lowered retrospectively to claim success.
• Different outcomes may have different justified targets.

7.8 GAP ANALYSIS

Where an outcome is below target or shows an adverse distribution, the programme shall identify specific causes such as curriculum gap, prerequisite weakness, assessment quality, pedagogy, laboratory exposure, learner support or data quality.

7.9 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

• Actions shall specify owner, resources, timeline, expected result and verification method.
• Actions may include curriculum revision, content beyond syllabus, new laboratory work, pedagogy, mentoring, bridge learning, faculty development or assessment redesign.
• Completion of an activity is not proof of improvement; subsequent evidence shall be reviewed.

LMS AUTOMATION, APPROVAL AND AUDIT

7.10 AUTOMATED CALCULATION

The LMS may calculate CO, WK, PO and PSO attainment automatically from approved marks, mapping and target data. Automation shall be deterministic, versioned and reproducible. AI may explain patterns or suggest actions but shall not modify marks, mappings, targets or approved results.

7.11 DATA GOVERNANCE

• Original student marks and faculty submissions shall remain unchanged and auditable.
• Final mappings and methodology shall require authorised academic approval.
• Any correction shall preserve old and new values, reason, approver and timestamp.
• Role dashboards shall read from approved database records, not page/session-only state.
• Testing resets shall clear only authorised workflow/transaction data and shall never clear protected core/master or audit-critical records.

7.12 HUMAN REVIEW

Course faculty, programme coordinator and HOD shall review calculated results before publication. The system shall flag missing data, abnormal distributions, mapping gaps and formula-version changes.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

8. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

• Academic Council and Boards of Studies approve programme outcomes, curriculum and major OBE methodology changes.
• Dean Academics and IQAC maintain the institutional OBE framework and review consistency.
• COE ensures assessment security, mark integrity and approved data transfer.
• HOD and programme OBE coordinator validate mappings, targets, results and improvement plans.
• Course faculty define COs, map assessments, maintain rubrics and analyse attainment.
• LMS/IT teams implement approved formulas, role permissions, audit logs and reproducible reports.
• Students participate in assessments and feedback honestly and may seek clarification through academic processes.

IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE

9. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE

1. Approve programme outcomes, PEOs and PSOs through statutory academic bodies.
2. Define course outcomes using measurable verbs, content coverage and expected cognitive level.
3. Prepare CO–WK–PO–PSO mappings with rationale and review.
4. Create assessment blueprints linking questions, tasks and rubrics to COs.
5. Calculate CO attainment from verified marks and approved threshold/level rules.
6. Aggregate WK, PO and PSO attainment through the approved weighted method.
7. Compare results with targets, diagnose gaps, approve actions and verify impact in later cycles.

RECORDS AND COMPLIANCE

10. RECORDS AND EVIDENCE

• Approved PEO, PO, PSO, WK and CO statements
• Curriculum matrices and mapping rationales
• Question-paper blueprints, rubrics, marks and moderation records
• CO, WK, PO and PSO attainment calculation sheets/reports
• Target approvals, surveys, gap analysis and action-taken records
• LMS calculation version, audit logs and approved overrides

11. MONITORING INDICATORS

• Percentage of courses with approved COs and valid assessment mapping
• Coverage and cognitive-level balance of assessments
• CO/PO/PSO target attainment trends
• Number and closure rate of identified curriculum or pedagogy gaps
• Reproducibility of attainment calculations from source marks
• Evidence of improvement in subsequent assessment cycles

12. CONFIDENTIALITY, RETENTION AND ACCESS

Records shall be accurate, retrievable and protected against unauthorized alteration, disclosure or destruction. Access shall be role-based and limited to legitimate institutional need. Retention and disposal shall follow the approved schedule and applicable requirements.

13. NON-COMPLIANCE

Non-compliance may result in corrective action, withdrawal of access or benefit, recovery of loss, disciplinary action, referral to a statutory body or other proportionate action after due process.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL

14. REVIEW AND AMENDMENT

The policy owner shall review this document at the stated cycle or earlier due to changes in law, regulation, institutional structure, technology, risk, audit findings or stakeholder requirements. Amendments shall take effect only after approval and version control.

15. REFERENCES

• Applicable NBA SAR/manual and Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies framework
• Autonomous curriculum and examination regulations of the Institution
• Bloom’s/Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and approved assessment rubrics
• Institutional Academic, Examination, Academic Audit, LMS and Accreditation Policies

16. APPROVAL AND SIGNATURES

This is a controlled institutional document. Printed copies are uncontrolled unless specifically stamped and issued by the authorized office.