Criterion 3 is where outcome-based education stops being a description of intent and becomes arithmetic. It asks the department to define Course Outcomes for every course, map them to the POs and PSOs, measure how far students actually attained each CO, and then roll those measurements up into a number for each PO and PSO.
The department's method is stated once and applied uniformly: every CO attainment figure is 80% direct assessment plus 20% indirect, and every PO or PSO attainment figure is derived from CO attainment weighted by the CO–PO mapping value. Because the whole chain is arithmetic on published tables, an evaluator can recompute any number in it from the SAR itself.
The result of that chain is the set of figures the rest of the SAR turns on: PO1 2.22, PO2 1.71, PO3 1.75, PO4 1.84, PO5 1.52, PO6 1.70, PO7 1.88, PSO1 2.15 and PSO2 1.98 for the 2023–26 batch, every one of them above its target.
The official breakdown for Criterion 3, totalling 100 marks.
The seven POs are NBA's own, common to all diploma programmes nationally. The two PSOs are the department's, proposed after consultation with students, alumni, society, industry and parents, then discussed and approved by the departmental DQAC.
Course Outcomes are written by the faculty member designated subject in-charge before the semester begins, and endorsed by the DQAC. Courses carry an internal ID of the form C111 — C for course, then year, then semester, then course number within that semester.
NBA requires Course Outcomes for one course from each semester in the SAR itself, while expecting them to exist for all courses. The six chosen span the full programme, and the batches they are drawn from are stated for each: Fundamentals of Electronics (semester 1), Digital Electronics (semester 2), Electronic Circuits & Networks (semester 3), Microprocessor & Microcontroller (semester 4), Microwave and Radar Communication (semester 5) and VLSI (semester 6).
The COs are produced by the subject in-charge before the semester starts and endorsed by the DQAC, which is what makes them departmental rather than individual.
| Sem | Course | Code | Course ID |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fundamentals of Electronics | 4311102 | C117 |
| 2 | Digital Electronics | 4321102 | C126 |
| 3 | Electronic Circuits & Networks | 4331101 | C232 |
| 4 | Microprocessor & Microcontroller | 4341101 | C242 |
| 5 | Microwave and Radar Communication | 4351103 | C353 |
| 6 | VLSI | 4361102 | C362 |
SAR Tables B.3.1.2 – B.3.1.7 carry the full outcome text for each.
For each of those six courses the SAR reproduces a Course Articulation Matrix — every CO of the course scored against every PO and PSO on the standard 1–3 scale, with a dash where there is no correlation, and a final row giving the course's overall mapping.
The department is explicit that the mapping is not a formality: when GTU introduced the new syllabus in 2021, each subject in-charge was tasked with writing the COs in line with the POs *with justification*, and producing the CO–PO–PSO mapping with justification, before the semester began.
The programme-level matrix extends the same mapping across all 40 courses including first-year courses, and it is the table everything downstream depends on — the Criterion 2 gap analysis reads its column averages, and Criterion 7 sets its targets as percentages of them.
The SAR explains the shape of the matrix rather than just presenting it. Basic science courses map strongly to PO1, since their job is to transmit engineering knowledge, and contribute to PO2 and PO3 to varying degrees. Higher-semester courses carry the load for PO3 and PO5, because that is where students meet problems complex enough to investigate and where societal and environmental consequences become visible. All courses contribute to the PSOs.
The matrix is prepared by a committee of senior faculty and the respective course coordinators, not by a single author.
Forty marks on whether Course Outcomes were actually attained — 10 for describing the assessment process and 30 for the record of attainment across every course.
The two lettered sub-points cover what is assessed and how well the assessment instruments fit the outcomes they are supposed to measure.
CO attainment is computed as 80% direct plus 20% indirect. Direct attainment comes from the four assessment components GTU defines; indirect attainment comes from the Course Exit Survey completed by students who have finished the course.
Not every course carries all four components — the number varies from two to four depending on whether the course is theory-only, practical-only, or both — and total marks vary at 50, 100 or 150. The department therefore fixes component weightages per course from the GTU teaching scheme rather than applying one formula everywhere.
| Component | Conducted by | Marks | What it assesses |
|---|---|---|---|
| End Semester Exam — ESE | University | 70 | Comprehensive assessment across the entire syllabus — understand, apply, analyse, evaluate. |
| End Semester Practical / Viva — ESE(V)–PR | Department (sem 1–4); University (sem 5–6) | 25 / 50 | Practical aspects of the course, assessed at the end of the semester by practical exam and viva voce. |
| Mid Semester Exam — PA(M) + micro-project | Department | 30 | Class test plus the micro-project submitted at semester end, giving hands-on practice at application level. |
| Internal — PA(I) | Department | 25 / 50 | Ability to apply theory in practice, individually or in a team, assessed at the end of each experiment on inferences drawn, data analysed and use of equipment and modern tools. |
SAR Table B.3.2.1. Results for all components are declared by the university as grades; departmental marks are supplied to the university.
The department documents the calculation as an eight-step procedure, which is what makes the attainment figures reproducible rather than declared.
Steps 1 to 3 set the frame: fix the weightage of each assessment component from the GTU teaching scheme; fix the attainment-level criteria; and convert the grades GTU returns for the theory ESE back into marks. Steps 4 to 6 do the direct calculation: tabulate CO-wise marks per student per component, apply the component weightages to get weighted marks per CO, and average across students to get the direct attainment for each CO.
Step 7 handles the indirect side. The Course Exit Survey responses are converted to a numeric scale — Excellent 3, Very Good 2.5, Good 2, Average 1.5, Poor 1 — and averaged. Step 8 combines the two at 80:20.
The attainment thresholds are deliberately harder for final-year students than for first and second years, so the standard rises as the student progresses.
| Level | First and second year | Final year |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 50% of students score more than 60% marks | 50% of students score more than 70% marks |
| 2 | 50% of students score more than 50% marks | 50% of students score more than 60% marks |
| 1 | 50% of students score more than 40% marks | 50% of students score more than 50% marks |
SAR Table 3.2.1. The per-student variant used in the worked example scores level 3 at ≥60% (≥70% final year), level 2 at 50–60%, level 1 at 40–50% and level 0 below 40%.
Thirty marks rest on the record itself. The SAR carries CO-wise attainment for all 40 courses, for each of the three assessment batches — course code, course ID, name, the attainment of each CO, and the course average.
The worked example the department uses throughout is Linear Integrated Circuits (Analog Electronics, C245), carried step by step from the raw per-student marksheet to the final figure, so the method can be checked against real data rather than described abstractly.
| C245.1 | C245.2 | C245.3 | C245.4 | C245.5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct CO attainment | 2.00 | 1.86 | 1.71 | 2.14 | 2.57 |
| Indirect CO attainment | 2.29 | 1.86 | 2.29 | 2.36 | 2.21 |
| Final (80% direct + 20% indirect) | 2.06 | 1.86 | 1.83 | 2.18 | 2.50 |
SAR Table 3.2.6. Full CO attainment tables for all 40 courses across all three batches appear in the SAR.
Forty marks on PO and PSO attainment — the top of the chain that began with individual student marks.
Ten marks for describing the tools, of which 8 sit on their quality and relevance rather than on listing them.
There are only two tools, and both are inherited from the CO layer rather than invented at PO level. Direct attainment of the POs and PSOs derives from the direct CO assessment — the internal and external components of student assessment. Indirect attainment derives from the Program Exit Survey administered to passing-out students.
Direct PO and PSO attainment is computed from CO attainment weighted by the mapping value, using a single stated formula: attainment equals the CO–PO–PSO mapping value multiplied by the CO attainment, divided by 3. Applying it across all COs of a course gives that course's contribution to each PO and PSO; averaging across all courses of the programme gives the direct attainment figure.
Dividing by 3 is what makes the result comparable: it normalises the mapping value against its maximum, so a course mapped at level 1 contributes a third of what a course mapped at level 3 does for the same CO attainment.
Indirect attainment comes from the Program Exit Survey, a questionnaire whose items correspond directly to the POs and PSOs, collected on paper from each passing-out batch. Responses convert to a numeric scale — Excellent 3, Very Good 2.5, Good 2, Average 1, Poor 0. This is a harsher scale at the bottom than the Course Exit Survey's, where Average scores 1.5 and Poor 1.
Thirty marks on the results themselves, reported per batch and then consolidated.
The SAR reproduces, for each of the three batches, a full matrix of all 40 courses against all nine outcomes, followed by three summary rows: direct attainment, indirect attainment, and the final 80:20 figure. Every published attainment number can therefore be recomputed from the table it sits in.
For the 2023–26 batch, direct attainment runs 2.16, 1.52, 1.57, 1.71, 1.40, 1.46, 1.70, 2.07, 1.83 across PO1–PO7 and PSO1–PSO2, and indirect attainment 2.50, 2.50, 2.50, 2.40, 2.00, 2.70, 2.60, 2.50, 2.60. Combining them at 80:20 gives the final figures below.
The gap between direct and indirect attainment is consistent and worth noting: students rate the programme more highly on the exit survey than the assessment data alone shows. Weighting direct assessment at 80% means the published figure stays anchored to measured performance rather than to perception.
| Batch | PO1 | PO2 | PO3 | PO4 | PO5 | PO6 | PO7 | PSO1 | PSO2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021–24 | 1.93 | 1.44 | 1.61 | 1.67 | 1.44 | 1.53 | 1.62 | 1.83 | 1.72 |
| 2022–25 | 2.04 | 1.60 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.38 | 1.56 | 1.68 | 1.90 | 1.71 |
| 2023–26 | 2.22 | 1.71 | 1.75 | 1.84 | 1.52 | 1.70 | 1.88 | 2.15 | 1.98 |
SAR Tables 3.3.2 – 3.3.4, final attainment rows.
The overall level of attainment is judged against a target that is set per outcome, not a single fixed value. As recorded in Criterion 7, each outcome's target is a percentage of that outcome's own Programme Articulation Matrix average, raised whenever it is met — 66.67% for 2023-24, 70% for 2024-25 and 73% for 2025-26. The targets shown below are the 2025-26 values, the highest the department has set.
Every outcome exceeded its target, in every year of the assessment period — all seven POs and both PSOs, in 2023-24, in 2024-25 and again in 2025-26. Margins in the latest batch range from +0.26 (PO5) to +0.47 (PSO2), and they were achieved against a progressively harder standard, since the target moved up twice precisely because it was being met.
Every outcome also improved in absolute terms: all nine record a higher final attainment in the 2023–26 batch than in 2021–24, with none regressing over the period. The strongest gains are PSO1 (+0.32), PO1 (+0.29), PO2 (+0.27) and PO7 (+0.26), which the department attributes to the laboratory upgrades in Criterion 6 and the project and skill-based activity in Criterion 2.
Two outcomes have additionally passed 2.00 — PO1 at 2.22 and PSO1 at 2.15 — with PSO2 at 1.98 effectively at that level. That is a separate benchmark from the target: 2.00 is the mapping strength used for curricular-gap analysis in Criterion 2. PO5, though clear of its target by +0.26, is the outcome the department has selected for the next improvement cycle.
| Outcome | 2021–24 | 2022–25 | 2023–26 | Target 2025-26 | Margin | Change | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PO1 | 1.93 | 2.04 | 2.22 | 1.95 | +0.27 | +0.29 | Target exceeded |
| PO2 | 1.44 | 1.60 | 1.71 | 1.38 | +0.33 | +0.27 | Target exceeded |
| PO3 | 1.61 | 1.62 | 1.75 | 1.40 | +0.35 | +0.14 | Target exceeded |
| PO4 | 1.67 | 1.62 | 1.84 | 1.50 | +0.34 | +0.17 | Target exceeded |
| PO5 | 1.44 | 1.38 | 1.52 | 1.26 | +0.26 | +0.08 | Target exceeded |
| PO6 | 1.53 | 1.56 | 1.70 | 1.28 | +0.42 | +0.17 | Target exceeded |
| PO7 | 1.62 | 1.68 | 1.88 | 1.47 | +0.41 | +0.26 | Target exceeded |
| PSO1 | 1.83 | 1.90 | 2.15 | 1.78 | +0.37 | +0.32 | Target exceeded |
| PSO2 | 1.72 | 1.71 | 1.98 | 1.51 | +0.47 | +0.26 | Target exceeded |
SAR Table 3.3.5. Targets are the 2025-26 values from Criterion 7 Table 7.1.1 — 73% of each outcome’s own Programme Articulation Matrix average.
Criterion 3 runs from page 183 of the SAR. Every figure above is taken from the report; where a figure is not stated in the SAR it is not given here.
