Criterion 4: Course/ Module Design and Development

Summary:

The faculty consults academic staff, non-academic/ technical staff, students, alumni, and external stakeholders in a number of processes in Course/Module design and development. The Faculty of Engineering adopts SLQF guidelines at each stage of the design, development, and approval of courses.

The faculty ensures all courses/modules have well-established learning outcomes (ILOs) matching the programme outcomes (POs) as specified in accreditation guidelines which are periodically reviewed.

The Curriculum Revision Committee and Faculty Quality Assurance Cell (FQAC) provide and regularly monitor standard formats, templates, and guidelines for module design and development.

ndividual modules are formulated with assessment criteria to meet ILOs where students get equal opportunities to actively engage with the learning activities through group or individual assessments.

In conclusion, all academic programmes offered by the faculty are followed by a set of evaluation processes to ensure that the content is covered while achieving the learning outcomes. The faculty has incorporated adequate resources and provisions to properly monitor and review the process. Student feedback and peer observations provide evidence for the teaching and learning practices of the faculty. To ensure that proper design principles and academic standards are adopted in the processes of teaching and learning, monitoring and reviewing, and content designing, the faculty refers to relevant academic and professional standards, and the faculty is guided by the expert opinion of both industry and academia as necessary.

Claim 4.1:

Internal and external subject experts are involved with the course development process through a well-established mechanism including FICB, DICB, External review processes and curriculum development committee at department and faculty levels.

Evidence of Best Practices

Claim 4.2:

Individual courses/modules have well established objectives and learning outcomes matching the programme outcome which are periodically reviewed/accredited.

Evidence of Best Practices

Claim 4.3:

Faculty curriculum development committee has guided individual academic programme to adhere to the SLQF guidelines when developing the curriculum.

Evidence of Best Practices

Claim 4.4:

Faculty curriculum development committee and Faculty Quality Assurance Cell have guided individual academic programme to use the standard formats and templates formulated by them.

Evidence of Best Practices

Claim 4.5:

Individual programmes have undergone the IESL accreditation process and mapped the learning and assessment to the learning outcome which are separately mapped with programme outcomes.

Evidence of Best Practices

Claim 4.6:

Courses are designed to enable students to actively engage with the learning activities through group or individual assessment.

Evidence of Best Practices

Claim 4.7:

The course module descriptors containing, ILOs, syllabus topics, assessment criteria and other relevant information are available in the Students’ Handbook.

Evidence of Best Practices

Claim 4.8:

The course design has well addressed the necessary requirements of credit value by different types of learning as per SLQF.

Evidence of Best Practices

Claim 4.9:

Course design is well-established with the learning strategies necessary for the development of collaborative learning, creative and critical thinking, life-long learning, interpersonal communication and teamwork.

Evidence of Best Practices

Claim 4.10:

The faculty takes into account temporary disabilities/illnesses and allows extra reading time in exams and also facilitates needy students to sit exams in the university medical centre.

Evidence of Best Practices

    Claim 4.11:

    The program design has offered courses on a well-planned schedule, enabling students to complete them within the intended period of time.

    Evidence of Best Practices

    Claim 4.12:

    The appropriateness and the adequacy of the course content is validated with established procedures and the completion within the time is guaranteed.

    Evidence of Best Practices

    Claim 4.13:

    The faculty regularly updates the use of appropriate media and technology in the design, development and delivery of courses.

    Evidence of Best Practices

    Claim 4.14:

    Staff training programs are regularly provided by the faculty. Teaching learning practices are evaluated using student feedback and peer observations, etc.

    Evidence of Best Practices

    Claim 4.15:

    Faculty has incorporated adequate resources and provisions to properly monitor and review the process.

    Evidence of Best Practices

    Claim 4.16:

    The faculty has a record of approvals given to ensure that proper design principles and academic standards are adopted in its processes of teaching and learning, monitoring and reviewing and content designing.

    Evidence of Best Practices

    Claim 4.17:

    The faculty appoints the curriculum revision committee with competent staff from each department to assess newly developed course proposals.

    Evidence of Best Practices

    Claim 4.18:

    The faculty refers to relevant academic and professional standards and the faculty is guided by expert opinion of both industry and academia.

    Evidence of Best Practices

    Claim 4.19:

    All academic programmes offered by the faculty are followed by a set of evaluation processes to ensure that the content is covered while achieving the learning outcomes.

    Evidence of Best Practices