Summary:
What and how students learn depends on the assessment methods. Therefore, it is essential to align assessment tasks with intended learning outcomes. The Faculty of Engineering has a well-established student assessment strategy to achieve intended learning outcomes. The next section addresses the features of the assessment strategy.
The assessment strategy is aligned to program outcomes and specified qualification/level descriptors of the SLQF. The university has appointed committees to design, approving, monitoring, and reviewing the assessment strategies for programmes. In addition, there are well-established mechanisms to review and amend assessment strategies.
Student assessment consists of formative assessment and summative assessment methods. The university has established the necessary mechanisms to address the assessment strategy in program design. The university has developed By-Laws and performance criteria for each degree programme. Students are assessed using the published criteria, regulations, and procedures which are communicated to students at the time of enrollment. The faculty ensures that qualified internal examiners and external examiners are involved in assessing the students. Internal board of exams and external board of exams are conducted to ensure the accuracy of graduation requirements are verifying marks at several stages. The Senate checks result submission progress. The university has taken several measures and committed to addressing further needs of differently-abled students in terms of infrastructure development and exam time allocation. Examination results are documented accurately and communicated to the students within the stipulated time. The university provides a complete transcript indicating the courses followed, grades obtained, the aggregate GPA, and class. The university has developed a policy for Plagiarism and by-laws, including those on academic misconduct. It strictly enforces those according to the institutional policies and procedures. The above policies and procedures ensure achieving the expected standards of the student assessment and awards.
Claim 7.1:
The university has established necessary mechanisms to address assessment strategy in program design, and assessment tasks linked to the programme outcomes
The university has developed By-Laws and performance criteria for each degree programme.
The senate has approved guidelines for Examination procedures. Formats have been developed for question papers, mark sheets thesis/dissertation.
The Faculties/Departments conduct industry collaborative meetings. The university has appointed committees to review the curriculums and By-Law.
ILO is given to the students, along with the curriculum.
Teaching, learning, and assessment process are well planned at the faculty level and programme level to maintain proper delivery. The relation between the assessment process and learning outcomes are clearly documented.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 7.2:
The assessment strategy is well aligned with SLQF and SBS and requirements of professional bodies.
The Faculties/Departments conduct industry collaborative meetings. The university has appointed committees to review the curriculums and By-Laws.
The format has been developed for the curriculum. Student feedback is taken. ILO is given to the students, along with the curriculum.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 7.3:
The university has appointed committees to design, approving, monitoring and reviewing the assessment strategies for programmes.
An academic calendar has been developed for each faculty. The course outline is given to students on the first day, including assessment strategy.
In the exam paper moderation, the assessment of ILO is checked.
Training materials are uploaded to the Moodle.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 7.4:
The faculty regularly updates the assessment strategies.
Industry collaborative meetings are conducted by the Faculties/Departments. The university has appointed committees to amends the curriculums and By-Laws periodically.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 7.5:
The weightage relating to different components of assessments are specified in the programme/course specifications and communicated to the students.
Each student is given Department/Faculty handbook/By-law 15 at the registration, and Curriculums are published on the websites
Mark sheets are generated centrally in accordance with the performance criteria. Results are handled centrally by a MIS system. Weightage for each question is shown in question papers, and syllabi indicate the ILO mapping to weightages.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 7.6:
The university has well-defined senate approved guidelines governing the appointment of both internal and external examiners.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 7.7:
External examiner reports and comments are taken by the examination board in finalizing the results.
The need for evaluation by an external examiner is mentioned in performance criteria.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 7.8:
Students are assessed using published criteria and communicated to students at the time of enrolment.
The university has developed performance criteria and by-law 15.
The university has developed a manual of academic procedures.
Instructions/guidelines are given timely. DMS has been developed to share information.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 7.9:
The university has developed a manual of procedure for all admin procedures. Instructions/guidelines are given timely. DMS has been developed to share information. IBOE, EBOE are held prior to release of results.
Evidence of Best Practices
- Cademic Cadre Profiles
Claim 7.10:
The university has senate approved guidelines for additional exam time for differently abled students. Further, the university will accommodate specific cases accordingly.
The university has one exam hall with access facilities using a wheelchair.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 7.11:
Formative assessments are well planned using semester balance documents, and timely feedback is given.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 7.12:
Well defined marking schemes for exam papers need to be submitted for moderation.
BOE records are kept. Examinations and Results are handled centrally to ensure transparency, fairness and consistency. Results are released to individual student profiles.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 7.13:
IBOE, EBOE are held. Accuracy of graduation requirements is verified at several stages by the examination department. System checking and manual verifications of the transcript are conducted.
IBOE, EBOE are held prior to release of results. Results submission progress is checked by the Senate
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 7.14:
The university provides a complete transcript indicating the courses followed, grades obtained and the aggregate GPA/grades, and class.
After confirmation from the senate, the students will be eligible to collect the semester wise Results Sheets from the Examinations division. After confirmation from the senate, the students will be eligible to collect the transcript.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 7.15:
Results submission progress is checked by the senate.
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 7.16:
Faculty has a well-organized mechanism to ensure the name of the degree complies with the SLQF guidelines.
BOE records are kept. Examinations and results are handled centrally
Results submission progress is checked by the senate
Evidence of Best Practices
Claim 7.17:
The university has developed a policy for Plagiarism. Examination offenses are investigated by two independent committees.