Vision of the university or department
Mission of the program
Program objectives (POBs)
POs
COs
The COs are derived from POs and, therefore, can have multiple SLOs. The COs are expressed as CO= {CO1, CO2,….} = {SLO1, SLO2, …}, meaning that a CO is a set of many COs and many SLOs. These outcomes are derived from the vision, mission, SRGs and LRGs. The next component is a group assignment that played the most important role among all three evaluation components. The description of the group assignment is briefly as follows:
Each group (in our case, a pair) of students was assigned a topic to be worked. The group had one student each from CSE and ECE. The topics were problem‐based, such as: “Why is a Fourier transform used in signal processing?”; “Give examples of five discrete signals that you see in your university and explain how the signals contribute in the system.”
The group had to study the topic thoroughly and understand the necessary concept and its significance.
Then, the understanding of the topic had to be demonstrated in the form of a short PowerPoint presentation, preferably with no more than 15 slides.
The students had to present this and record it as a video. A copy of the presentation and the video had to be submitted.
Students were also given the option to present the topic directly via Skype.
Next the specific observations made during the evaluation were reported, as listed here:
The students were apprehensive while the task was being assigned. The students seemed to lack both confidence and teamwork.
The students were not at all prepared to undertake a Skype presentation. Only two teams of the 55 teams agreed to present this way.
Generally, inside the classes while the course was being conducted, students were not very confident in responding to the queries or about having active interaction with the faculty.
The next stage was the evaluation of the students for the task just described. For the recorded presentation, the specific outcomes were observed as shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Specific SLOs for the recorded version of response to the assignment.
| SLOs | Number of students performing at different levels | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | Excellent | Outstanding | Not exhibited | |
| Fundamental/conceptual knowledge of the topic | 52 | 32 | 21 | 15 |
| Communication/presentation skill | 56 | 41 | 19 | 04 |
| Knowledge of mathematical concepts used | 41 | 34 | 23 | 22 |
| Critical thinking | 23 | 16 | 12 | 69 |
Aa can be seen in Table 3.2, students exhibited a few important outcomes in good number. The students who demonstrated critical thinking were smallest in number and those who performed excellently in demonstrating communication skill and conceptual knowledge are very good in number. The observation required a lot of time and participation by the faculty. An interesting and noteworthy point was that the SLOs were measurable and observable in better ways compared with conventional tests and assessment components. Moreover, a significant change was reported in the four students of the two teams who agreed to present the topic via Skype. The important and positive changes that were measurable in the students were:
The two students who had never been active and responsive inside the class, did very well. The reason for this performance includes encouragement, an opportunity to work something in team, active participation, responsibility for making the topic understandable, etc. The ways the students presented the topic, with a lot of research studies, using their references, and explaining properly, were wonderful.
One student whose academic performance is generally excellent who is always reluctant to respond and interact during the conduct of the course, performed outstandingly in this assignment.
The students learned online presentation and communication skills that will greatly help them in their career interviews and growth.
There was another important evaluation component, question‐answering, involved during the course. Generally, most of the students do not respond or interact during the delivery of the lectures and course until a constant motivational environment is created inside the class. To overcome this difficulty and to encourage all to participate, the component of question‐answering was made compulsory so that everyone could get the opportunity and exposure to be involved inside the classroom. The weighting of this component was made 5% of the maximum marks allotted in the subject for generating grading. This different type of assessment component resulted in the following measurable changes in the students:
Students who had never tried before started answering, thanks to the constant motivation and weighting of the assessment.
Students had to respond or even ask queries during the class hours.
This could help them demonstrate a few important explicitly set skills, such as participation skills, communication skills, the ability to overcome hesitancy while responding, and the conceptual approach of learning.
The students started asking questions whenever there was any ambiguity or doubt.
Thus, the level of confidence was seen to be considerably high in the maximum number of students.
3.2.2 Set of Skills Developed in CSE 5X08
A different approach to the assessment and practice of OBE‐centric components was followed in several other courses, one such being that of Image Processing (CSE 5X08). The components used in this course were almost similar to those in course ECE 3X20, except one more component was added. The components are:
1 Tests (Test‐1, Test‐2, Test‐3, mid‐term and CEs)
2 Group assignment (different approach)
3 Question‐answering and a response during the lectures
4 Problem statements for practicing in a MATLAB or PYTHON environment
The assessment of the first three was similar to that for ECE 3X20. The number of students was different; however, the assessment impact of the tools used and observable ripples in the students remained same. The pattern of attainment of various types of skill set and SLOs remained the same as that of ECE 3X20. Table 3.3 shows the exact number of students in a class of 42 students who attended