Worksheet for Evaluate Phase of Engineering Course Design
in Tier 2 Institutions
Evaluate Phase
Instructors conduct the course as per the instructional plan created in the Design Phase using
instruction material and learning material prepared in Development Phase.
However, each
instance of conducting a course is likely to be slightly different based on the context and the time
of offering. Implement Phase presents specifics of the instance of offering and involves preparing
and communicating the Syllabus of the course to the students, planning resources for conducting
the course, scheduling instruction, creating specific assessment instruments, giving feedback to
students after every assessment, and tracking the performance of students.
Evaluation in Evaluate Phase is summative.
Every instance of course design and its conduct
should be evaluated to plan for better attainment of Course Outcomes and consequently Program
Outcomes/Program Specific Outcomes in the next instance of course offering. The evaluation can
be self evaluation by the instructor as well as by peers. The activities of evaluation phase include

Exit survey

Attainment of COs of the Course

Actions proposed to bridge gap in CO attainment or enhancement of targets

Direct attainment of POs and PSOs through the COs of the course

Summary observations

Peer feedback if any

Suggestions for improvement

Have the outputs of Evaluate Phase peer reviewed
Note: After completing all the activities related to Evaluate Phase, all the material in blue color
may be deleted.
Course:
Credits:
Instructor:
Semester:
Course Exit Survey
For good learning by the student to occur there are several prerequisites. These include technical
competence of the teacher, motivation of the teacher, ability of the teacher to facilitate the
learning process, motivation of the student to learn, ability of students to learn, availability of good
learning material, and comfortable classroom/laboratory environment that facilitates learning. A
good teacher will be able to compensate for the deficiencies in some of these elements.
A well designed and effectively implemented course exit survey will go a long way in maintaining
and improving the quality of learning in an institution by providing feedback to the instructor. As
such a system is also quantitative in nature, if necessary, can be used as data in any Faculty
Appraisal and Development System (FADS) that is in use in an institution.
Some institutions
design one form for all courses of all branches of engineering, and have a standard mechanism of
collecting this student feedback. In such cases the instructor does not have a choice.
N.J. Rao/November 2015
The exit
1
survey on a course may be taken in hard copy form or electronically if the institution has some
Academic Management System or a Learning Management System operative. These systems will
even permit creation of summary student feedback report for each course.
In such a case the
summary student feedback report may directly be taken. The instructor can design his/her own
Exit Survey form if no such form is given by the Institute.
There are several forms and
approaches available in the literature. A sample framework and a sample form are given in the
following.
Instructor and
Course Evaluation System
Exit Survey Form (Give below the form you propose or required to use)
Results of Exit Survey with regard to performance of students against COs (Indirect
Attainment of COs)
Results of Exist Survey with regard to Instruction
Attainment of COs of the Course

The proportional weightages of CIE(Continuous Internal Evaluation): SEE (Semester End
Examination) may be 20:80, 25:75 or 30:70 for Tier 2 institutions

Assessment patterns are in the control of instructor only for Continuous Internal Evaluation
(CIE)

Information on pattern of Semester End Examination (SEE), and information related to
performance in individual COs are not available.
This requires the Institution to take the
same attainment (percentage marks) for all COs in SEE.

The number of assessment instruments used for CIE are decided by the instructor and/or
Department and sometimes by the affiliating University

Every question is tagged with CL, Course Outcome (CO) and marks

Direct attainment of COs can be determined from the performances of all students in all the
relevant assessment instruments.

Indirect attainment of COs can be determined from the course exit surveys. However, the exit
survey form should permit receiving feedback from students on individual COs. As computation
of indirect attainment of COs may turn out to be complex the percentage weightage to indirect
attainment can be kept at a low percentage, say 10%.

Targets are set for each CO of a course separately.
CO
N.J. Rao/November 2015
Target
(Class Average)
CO1
70%
CO2
80%
2
CO3
75%
CO4
65%
CO5
70%
CO6
80%
COi direct attainment = weightage of CIE x (COi attainment in internals) + weightage of SEE x
(Average percentage of marks in SEE) x
COi attainment = 0.9 COi direct attainment+ 0.1 COi indirect attainment
Note: Any similar mechanism suggested will only lead to approximate computation of attainment.
A more detailed version can vastly complicate the situation. However, one method computation of
attainment should be followed across all engineering programs in an Institution/College.
Class average in CIE
CO
A1
5
Cl. Ave
T1
10
Cl. Ave
T2
10
Cl. Ave
CIE Class
CO1
0
2.3/4
0.6/1
2.9/5= 58%
CO2
1.5/2
2.1/3
0.8/1
4.4/6 = 76%
CO3
0.7/1
2.3/3
2.3/3
5.3/7= 76%
CO4
1.7/2
0
1.2/2
2.9/4= 72%
CO5
0
0
1.1/2
1.1/2= 55%
CO6
0
0
0.7/1
0.7/1= 70%
Average
Computation of CO Direct Attainment in the course Cxxx
Attainment of COi in a course Cxxx = Wt. of CIE x Attainment of COi as percentage in CIE
+ Wt. of SEE x Class Average Marks Percentage in SEE
CO
CIE
30
Cl. Ave
SEE
70
Cl. Ave
Direct CO
Attainment
0.3 CIE Cl. Ave
+0.7 SEE Cl. Ave
CO1
2.9/5= 58%
63%
60.5
CO2
4.4/6 = 76%
63%
65.9
CO3
5.3/7= 76%
63%
65.9
CO4
2.9/4= 72%
63%
64.7
CO5
1.1/2= 55%
63%
59.6
CO6
0.7/1= 70%
63%
64.1
CO Attainment and Attainment Gap
Computation of Attainment of COs in Cxxx = 0.9 Direct CO Attainment
+ 0.1 Indirect CO Attainment
N.J. Rao/November 2015
3
CO
Direct CO
Attainment
0.3 CIE Cl. Ave
+0.7 SEE Cl. Ave
Indirect CO
Attainment
(Exit Survey)
CO
Attainment
CO Target
CO
Attainment Gap
%ge
CO1
60.5
78
62.3
60
-2.3%
CO2
65.9
85
67.8
75%
7.3%
CO3
65.9
76
66.9
70%
3.1%
CO4
64.7
89
67.1
70%
2.9%
CO5
59.6
78
61.4
80%
18.6%
CO6
64.1
85
66.2
70%
3.8%
Note: When there are no attainment gaps or attainment gaps are negative it is expected that the
instructor will enhance the CO target next time he offers the course.
Closure of the Quality Loop: At the end of the course the instructor should propose actions to
be taken at the time of next offering of the course to bridge CO attainment gap. Where targets are
attained the targets can be modified. These can be presented in the form of a table.
Target
CO
Attainment
gap
Action proposed to bridge the gap
Modification of
target where
achieved
CO1.
CO2.
CO3.
CO4.
CO5.
CO6.
CO7.
CO8.
Attainment of POs and PSOs through COs
POs and PSOs are attained through all core courses, Co-curricular activities and sometimes Extracurricular activities. Therefore, the instructor needs to compute the attainment of POs and PSOs
addressed through his/her course. At the level of a course we are not concerned with the indirect
attainment of POs and PSOs as its computation will depend on alumni, parents and employer
surveys. The method of computation should be common for all POs and PSOs or can be separate
for each PO and PSO and it should be done at the program levels and not at the course level.
Sample
Course: Analog Circuits and Systems
Course Outcome
CO1.
Understand the characteristics of linear one-port and two-port
signal processing networks
N.J. Rao/November 2015
Credits: 3:0:1
POs
PO1, PO10,
PSO1
4
CO2.
Model one-port devices including R, L, C and diodes, two-port
PO2, PO10,
PSO1
networks, and active devices including amplifiers, Op Amps,
comparators, multipliers, BJTs and FETs
CO3.
Understand how negative and positive feedback influence the
PO1, PSO1
behavior of analog circuits
CO4.
Design VCVS, CCVS, VCCS, CCCS, and DC and SMPS voltage
PO3,PO4, PO5,
PSO1
regulators
CO5.
Design analog filters
PO3,PO4, PO5,
PSO1
CO6.
Design waveform generators, phase followers and frequency
PO3, PO4, PO5,
PSO1
followers
There are several ways of computing direct attainment of POs and PSOs through the COs of a
course. One sample method is demonstrated in the following
Course – PO&PSO Mapping
Course: C302 Analog Circuits and Systems
Course
C302
PO1
PO2
PO3
PO4
PO5
PO6
PO7
PO8
PO9
PO10
PO11
PO12
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
PSO1
PSO2
PSO3
PSO4
3
0
0
0
POi Attainment = (1/3) POi Mapping Strength x Average of CO Attainment associated with POi
PO1 Attainment: (1.0/3.0) 0.67 = 0.22
PO2 Attainment: (1.0/3.0) 0.83 = 0.28
PO3 Attainment: (3.0/3.0) (0.93+1.07+0.8+1.0)/4 =0.95
P10 Attainment: (1.0/3.0) (0.83+0.83)/2 = 0.29
PSO1 Attainment: (3.0/3.0)(1.0+0.8+1.07+0.67+0.83+0.93)/6= 0.83
Course – PO Direct Attainment (Maximum attainment is 1.0)
Course
PO1
PO2
PO3
PO4
PO5
PO6
PO7
PO8
PO9
PO10
PO11
PO12
C302
0.22
0.28
0.95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.29
0
0
PSO1
PSO2
PSO3
PSO4
0.83
N.J. Rao/November 2015
5
Course No
PO1
PO2
PO3
PO4
PSO1
PSO2
PSO3
PSO4
PO5
PO6
PO7
PO8
PO9
PO10
PO11
PO12
Delete PSOs not relevant
Summary observations
Each batch of students and each instance of course offering can be different. The instructor must
record a summary of his own observations at the end of the course. These can integrate formative
and summary feedback of the students, student performances, nature of assessment instruments
actually used, and classroom experiences.
These summary observations are recorded by the
faculty member after all the formal activities associated with the course are completed.
SNo.
Observations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Note: More rows may be added if required
Peer feedback
The Department or the Institute may have a mentoring mechanism for new faculty members, or
they may arrange from time to time for some senior faculty member to sit through a session or
two. Even if no such formal mechanisms exist, a faculty member can request a senior colleague to
give feedback. Such peer feedback can be very valuable.
The peer feedback may formally be
recorded in the table shown.
SNo.
Observations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Note: More rows may be added if required
N.J. Rao/November 2015
6
Suggestions for Improvement
All the feedbacks received from different sources and one’s own observations can all lead to
suggestions and modifications to be made to the next offering of the course.
These can range
from modifications of course outcomes, competencies, instructional activities, the time taken for
each instructional unit, item bank, assessment instruments etc. All the suggestions may formally
be recorded.
SNo.
Observations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Note: More rows may be added if required
N.J. Rao/November 2015
7