Technical Education-Workshop on Accreditation to Principals of GPTs-Reg.

Annexure – 2

Programmes Accredited by NBA

NBA accredits programmes and not Institutions/departments. NBA accredits programmes of following disciplines at Diploma, Undergraduate (UG) and Postgraduate (PG) levels.

Programmes Accredited by NBA

NBA accredits programmes and not Institutions/departments. NBA accredits programmes of following disciplines at Diploma, Undergraduate (UG) and Postgraduate (PG) levels.
Sr.No.

Programmes
1

Engineering & Technology
2

Management
3

Pharmacy
4

Architecture, Applied Arts and Crafts
5

Computer Applications
6

Hospitality and Tourism Management

In view of a very large system of technical education in the country, the NBA operates a two-tier system of accreditation for all the programmes under its purview. The TIER-I system has been designed for the technical programmes offered by autonomous institutions and university departments better, while the TIER-II system is fine-tuned for the needs of the non-autonomous institutions affiliated to a university.

In both TIER-I and TIER-II systems, the same set of criteria have been considered for accreditation. In the TIER-I system, the criteria which are based on outcome parameters have been given more weightage, whereas in the TIER-II system, the weightage has been reduced, thereby, enhancing the weightage of the output-based criteria. However, a non-autonomous institution may also apply for accreditation on the basis of TIER-I system, if they feel that their curriculum is capable of attaining the desired outcomes of a programme.
How to achieve NBA’s programme accreditation?:

 NBA has Outcome Based process of accreditation. This process focuses on the predefined outcomes that by and large, signify knowledge, skills and capabilities expected from a graduate on successful completion of a program and also on the continuous improvement in attainment of outcomes vis-à-vis predefined outcomes and their relevance to Mission and Vision of the institution and Educational Objectives of the programme.
Criterion for Accreditation by NBA for Diploma Courses

Abstract of Parameters with max Points assigned

SNo.

Criterion

Max. points

1
Vision, Mission and Programme Educational Objectives

75
2

Programme Outcomes

200
3

Programme Curriculum

100
4

Students’  performance in the programme

100
5

Faculty Contributions

100
6

Facilities and technical support

100
7

Academic Support Units and Teaching- Learning Process

150
8

Governance, Institutional Support and Financial Resources

100
9

Continuous Improvement

75

Total

1000

Note: Programme seeking accreditation under TIER-II scoring a minimum of 750 points in aggregate out of 1000 points with minimum score of 60% in mandatory fields (criterion 1 and criteria 4 to 8 ) shall be eligible for accreditation for 5 years. Whereas, the programme with a score of minimum 600 points in aggregate shall be eligible for provisional accreditation for two years under Tier-II system.

Details of Criterion is given below.

Criterion 1 : Vision, Mission and Programme Educational Objectives (75)
Item no.

Item description

Points

Evaluation guidelines/ award of marks

1.1

Vision and Mission

5

Listing and articulation of the vision and mission statements of the institute and department (1)

Description of media (e.g. websites, curricula books) in which the vision and mission are published and how these are disseminated among stakeholders (2)

Articulation of the process involved in defining the vision and mission of the department from the vision and mission of the institute (2)

1.2

Programme Educational Objectives

10

Listing and articulation of the programme educational objectives of the programme under accreditation (1)

Description of media (e.g. websites, curricula books) in which the PEOs are published and how these are disseminated among stakeholders (1)

Listing of stakeholders of the programme under consideration for accreditation and articulation of their relevance (1)

Description of  the process that documents and demonstrates periodically that the PEOs are based on the needs of the stakeholders (3)

Description as to how the Programme Educational Objectives are consistent with the Mission of the department (4)

1.3

Achievement of Programme Educational Objectives

25

Description of the broad curricular components that contribute towards the achievement of the Programme Educational Objectives (10)

Description of the committees and their functions, working processes and related regulations (15)

1.4

Assessment of

achievement of Programme Educational  Objectives

30

Description of the assessment process that documents and demonstrates periodically the degree to which the Programme Educational Objectives are achieved Information on: (a) the listing and description of the assessment processes used to gather the data upon which the evaluation of each programme educational objective is based. Examples of data collection processes may include,  but are not limited to, employer surveys, graduate surveys, focus groups, industrial advisory committee meetings, or other processes that are relevant and appropriate to the programme; (b) the frequency  with which these assessment processes are carried out (10)

Details of evidence that the PEOs have been achieved: (a) the expected level of achievement for each of the programme educational objectives; (b) summaries of the results of the evaluation processes and an analysis illustrating the extent to which each of the programme educational objectives has been attained; and (c) how the results are documented and maintained (20)

1.5

Indicate how the PEOs have been redefining in the past.

5

Articulation with rationale as to how the results of the evaluation of the PEOs have been used to review/redefine the PEOs (5)

Criterion 2 : Programme Outcomes (200)

Item

no.

Item description

Points

Evaluation  guidelines

2.1

Definition and

Validation of Course Outcomes and Programme Outcomes

20

Listing of the course outcomes of the courses in

programme curriculum and  programme outcomes of the programme under accreditation (2)

Description of media (e.g. websites, curricula books) in which the POs are published and how these are disseminated among stakeholders (3)

Description of the process that documents and demonstrates periodically that the POs are defined in alignment with the graduate attributes prescribed by the NBA (5)

Details as to how the POs defined for the programme are aligned with the Graduate Attributes of the NBA as articulated in the accreditation manual (5)

Correlation of the defined POs of the programme with the PEOs (5)

2.2

Attainment of Programme Outcomes

50

Correlation between the course outcomes and the programme outcomes. The strength of the correlation is to be indicated (5)

Description of the different course delivery methods/modes (e.g. lecture interspersed with discussion, asynchronous mode of interaction, group discussion, project etc.) used to deliver the courses and justify the effectiveness of these methods for the attainment of the POs. This may be further justified using the indirect assessment methods such as course- end surveys (10)

Description of different types of course assessment and evaluation methods (both direct and indirect) in practice and their relevance towards the attainment of the POs (10)

Justification of the balance between theory and practical for the attainment of the PEOs and  the POs. Justify how the various project works/industry internships/field visits carried as part of the programme curriculum contribute towards the attainment of the POs (25)

2.3

Evaluation of attainment of Programme Outcomes

125

Description of the evaluation process that documents and demonstrates periodically the degree to which the POs are being attained. Information on: (a) the listing and description of the evaluation processes used to gather the data upon which the evaluation of each the programme outcomes is based. Examples of data collection processes may include, but are not limited to, specific exam questions, student portfolios, internally developed evaluation exams, project presentations, nationally-normed exams, oral exams, focus groups, industrial advisory committee and (b) the frequency with which these evaluation processes are carried out (25)

Information on:  (c) the expected level of attainment for each of the programme outcomes; (d) summaries of the results of the evaluation processes and an analysis illustrating the extent to which each of the programme outcomes are attained; and (e) how the results are documented and maintained (100)

2.4

Indicate how results of the evaluation of achievement of POs have been used for redefining POs

5

Articulation with rationale as to how the results of the evaluation of the POs have been used to review/redefine the POs (5)

Criterion 3: Programme Curriculum (100)

Minimum qualifying point 60 

Item no.

Item description

Points

Evaluation  guidelines
3.1

Curriculum

20

Structure of the curriculum (15)

Drawing of the schematic of the prerequisites of the courses in the curriculum (5)
3.2

Curriculum components and relevance to POs and PEOs.

25

Detailing of programme curriculum grouping based on different components and their relevance to programme outcomes (15)

Evidence that programme curriculum satisfies the applicable programme criteria specified by the appropriate American professional associations such as ASME, IEEE and ACM (10)
3.3

Industry interaction/internship

30

Details of industry’s involvement in the programme such as industry-attached laboratories and partial delivery of courses and internship opportunities for students (30)

3.4

Illustrate the processes used to identify the curricular gaps to the attainment of the COs/POs

10

Details of the processes used to identify the curricular gaps to the attainment of the COs/POs (10)

3.5

Indicate the content beyond syllabus imparted to attain the COs/POs

10

Details of the content beyond syllabus imported to attain the COs/POs (10)
3.6

Course Syllabi

5

Syllabus for each course and also provide the details of the syllabi format (5)

Criterion 4 : Students’  Performance in the Programme (100)
Item

Item description

Points

Evaluation  guidelines

no.

4.1

Admission Intake of

25

Admission intake Assessment = Average Percentage o

f

the programme
seats filled through approved procedure (10)

Admission quality assessment = Assessment = 1.5 x (Average percentage of students admitted through entrance examination) (15)

4.2

Success rate

20

Success rate = 20 × Mean of success index (SI) for past three batches

SI = (No. of students who cleared the programme in the minimum period of course  duration)/(No. of students admitted in the  first year and students admitted in that  batch via lateral entry)

4.3

Academic performance

20

Assessment = 2 × API

where, API = Academic performance index

= Mean of CGPA of all the students on a 10-point CGPA system

Or = (Mean of the percentage of marks of all students)/10

4.4

Placement and higher studies

20

Assessment  = 20 × (x + 1.25y)/N where, x  = No. of students placed,

y  = No. of students admitted for the higher studies,

N = No. of students admitted in the first year and students admitted via lateral entry in that batch subject to max. assessment points = 20

Percentage of students to be considered based on first year and lateral entry.

4.5

Professional activities

15
Professional societies / chapters and organising engineering events  (3)

Organisation of paper  contests, design contests, etc., and their achievements  (3)

Publication of technical  magazines, newsletters, etc. (3)

Entrepreneurship initiatives, product designs,  innovations (3)

Publications and awards  in inter-institute  events. (3)

Criterion 5 : Faculty Contributions (100)

Item no.

Item description

Points

Evaluation  guidelines
5.1

Student-teacher ratio

30

Assessment = 30 * 20 / STR:subject to Max. Assessment of 30.

Where  STR= Student Teacher Ratio = (x+y)/N1,

Where

x= Number of students in 2nd year of the programme y= Number of students in 3rd year of the programme

N1= Total number faculty members in the programme (by considering fractional load)
For Item Nos. 5.2 to 5.8, the denominator term (N) is computed as follows:-

N =Maximum {N1, N2}

Where N1=Total number of Faculty Members in the programme (Considering the fractional load),

N2=Number of Faculty positions needed for Student Teacher Ratio (STR) of 20.
5.2

Faculty qualifications

20

Assessment =2*FQI

Where FQI  =Faculty Qualification Index

=(10*x+8*y+6*z)/N

Where x = No. of faculty members with PhD./M.Tech.Engg. or M.Tech.Ed./3 years Industrial Experience after PG

y = No. of faculty members with M.E./M.Tech./NET Qualified/2 years Industrial Experience after UG

z = No. of faculty members with  B.E./B.Tech./MSc./MCA
5.3

Faculty Training

20

Training in Educational Technology/ Induction Programme from NITTTR like organizations for a duration of at least two weeks (10) Assessment = 10 * (Number of faculty trained in induction like programmes)/ (N)

Training of faculty in last three years from NITTTR like organizations for a duration of at least two weeks in content updation, management, innovations, laboratory etc.(5) Assessment = 5 * Number of faculty trained in two week programmesof content updation, management etc.)/ (3 * N) Faculty trained in modular trimester/semester programme in engineering/technical education (5)

Assessment = 5 * Number of faculty having undergone  modular trimester/semester programme in engineering/technical education / N

5.7

Faculty R&D Projects, Consultancy and Testing  work

5

Assessment of Faculty R&D , Consultancy and Testing Work

= Sum of FRDCT by each faculty /N

Guidelines: A faculty member gets at most 5 points each year, depending upon the amount and/or the contribution made. A suggestive scheme is given below for a minimum amount of Rs. 1 lac.,:-

5 points for funding by National Agency, 4 points for funding by State Agency,

3 points for funding by private sector, and

2 points for funding by the sponsoring Trust/Society 2 points for routine testing

5.8

Faculty interaction with outside  world

10

Faculty interaction  p o i n ts   (FIP )   assessment

= 2 × ( Sum of FIP by each faculty member)/N

Criterion 6 : Facilities  and  Technical Support (100)
Item No

Item description

Points

Evaluation  guidelines

       6.1
Classrooms in the Department

     10

Adequate number of rooms for lectures

(core/electives), seminars,  tutorials,  etc., for the programme (4)

Teaching aids—multimedia projectors, etc. (3)

Acoustics, classroom size, conditions  of chairs/benches, air circulation, lighting, exits, ambience, and such other amenities/facilities  (3)

6.2

Faculty rooms in the Department

10

Availability of individual faculty rooms (4)

Room equipped with  white/black  board, computer, internet, and  such other amenities/facilities (3)

Usage of room for counselling/discussion with students (3)

6.3

Laboratories including computing facility

60

Adequate well-equipped laboratories to run all the programme-specific  curriculum (20)

Availability of computing facilities for the department exclusively  (15)

Availability of laboratories with technical support within and beyond working  hours (10)

Equipments to  run  experiments  and  their maintenance, number of students per experimental setup, size of the laboratories, overall ambience, etc. (15)

6.4

Technical manpower support

20

Availability of adequate and qualified technical supporting staff for programme- specific laboratories (15)

Incentives,  skill-upgrade, and  professional  advancement (5)

Criterion 7 : Academic Support Units and Teaching-Learning Process (150)

Item no.

Item description

Points

Evaluation  guidelines
7.1

Academic process

15

Assessment :
Published schedule in academic calendar for assignments/mid-semester   tests, distribution of corrected scripts(5)

Published time-table with sufficient hours for lectures, labs, tutorials, innovative projects, remedial classes and extra-curricular activities(5)

Attendance monitoring and penalty for poor attendance(

5)
7.2

Academic support units and common facilities (For first year course)

30

Assessment :
Adequacy of space, number of students per batch, quality and availability of measuring instrument, laboratory manuals, list of experiments

Basic science/engineering laboratories(10)

Central computing laboratory(6)

Manufacturing practices workshop(10)

Communication Skills Laboratory(4)
7.3

Tutorial classes/ remedial classes/ mentoring

15

Assessment :

Tutorial classes, size of tutorial classes, hours per subject in time table(6)

Remedial classes and additional make-up tests for weaker students( 4)

Mentoring system(5)
7.4

Teaching in programme specific lab and workshop

25

Assessment :
Laboratory activities and workshop manuals

(10)

Quality of manuals(5)

Working equipment of laboratory and workshop; Removal of obsolescence (5)

Effectiveness of laboratory/workshop instructions (5)

7.5

Teaching evaluation process

: Feedback system

20

Assessment :
Design of Performa and process for feedback evaluation(7)

Feedback analysis and reward/corrective measures taken(8)

Feedback mechanism from alumni, parents and industry( 5)
7.6

Innovative Projects and

Learning beyond syllabus

15

Availability of resources for innovation and learning beyond syllabus(10)

Specify innovation conducive practices and projects undertaken in last 3 years(5)
7.7

Training, placement and Entrepreneurship Cell

15

Assessment :
Career guidance services including counselling for higher studies( 5)

Training and placement facility with training and placement officer (TPO), industry interaction for training/internship/placement(5)

Entrepreneurship cell and incubation facility(5)
7.8

Co-curricular and extra curricular activities

15

Co-curricular and extra-curricular activities, e.g., NCC/NSS, cultural activities etc(6)

Sports facilities  and activities with qualified instructors : (6)

Life management and ethical practices(3)

Criterion  8 : Governance, Institutional Support and Financial Resources (100)

Item no.

Item description

Points

Evaluation  guidelines
8.1

Campus infrastructure and facility

10

Maintenance of academic  infrastructure and  facilities (4)

Hostel (boys and girls) (2)

Electricity, power  backup, telecom  facility, drinking water, and  security (4)
8.2

Organisation, governance, and transparency

10

Governing body, administrative setup, and functions  of various bodies (2)

Defined rules, procedures, recruitment, and promotional policies, etc. (2)

Decentralisation in working and grievance redressal  system (3)

Transparency and availability of correct/unambiguous information (3)
8.3

Budget allocation, utilisation, and public accounting

20

Adequacy  of budget allocation (8)

Utilisation of allocated  funds (10)

Availability of detailed audited statements of all the receipts and expenditures publicly (2)
8.4

Programme Specific Budget Allocation, Utilisation

20

Adequacy  of budget allocation (10)

Utilisation of allocated  funds (10)

8.5

Library

25

Library space and ambience, timings and usage, availability of a qualified librarian and other staff, library automation, online access,  and  networking (5)

Titles and volumes per title (4)

Scholarly journal subscriptions (3)

Digital library (8)

Library expenditures on books, magazines/journals, and miscellaneous contents (5)

8.6

Internet

05

Sufficient and effective i nternet access facility with security privacy (5)

8.7

Safety norms and checks

05

Checks for wiring and electrical installations for leakage  and

earthing (1)

Fire-fighting measurements: Effective safety arrangements with emergency/multiple exits and ventilation/exhausts in auditoriums and large classrooms/labs, fire-fighting equipments and training, availability of water and s u c h other  facilities (1)

Safety of civil structures/buildings/catwalks/hostels, etc. (1)

Handling of hazardous chemicals and  such other hazards (2)

8.8

Counselling  and emergency medical care and  first-aid

05

Availability of counselling facility Arrangement for emergency medical care Availability of first-aid unit
Criterion  9:  Continuous  Improvement  (75)

Minimum  qualifying points: 45

Item no.

Item description

Points

Evaluation  guidelines

9.1

Improvement in success index of students

5

Points must be awarded in proportion to the average improvements in computed SI (in 4.1) over three years.

9.2

Improvement in academic performance index of students

5

Points must be awarded in proportion to the average improvements in computed API (in 4.2) over three years.

9.3

Improvement in STR

5

Points must be awarded in proportion to the average improvement in computed STR (in 5.1) over three years.

9.4

Enhancement of faculty qualifications index

5

Points must be awarded in proportion to the average improvement in computed FQI (in 5.2) over three years.

9.5

Improvement in faculty research publication, R&D projects consultancy  and testing

10

Points must  be awarded in proportion to  the  combined average improvement in computed FRP (in 5.5) and FRDCT (5.7) over three  years.

9.6

Continuing education

10

Points must  be awarded in proportion to participation in continuing education (contributing to course  modules  and conducting and attending short-term courses  and  workshops) programmes  to gain and/or disseminate their knowledge in their areas  of expertise.

9.7

New facility created

15

New facilities in terms of infrastructure/equipment/facilities added to  augment the  programme.

9.8

Overall improvement since last accreditation, if any, otherwise,

since the

commencement  of the  programme.

20

Points must be awarded based  on the strengths and weaknesses mentioned in the last accreditation visit, and how those  were addressed and/or  efforts  were  made.

Visit of Evaluation Team for ACCREDITATION

The Evaluation Team will visit the institution seeking accreditation of its programme(s) evaluate and validate the assessment of the institute / department through the SAR of the programme concerned as per laid down accreditation criteria. The evaluators may obtain such 19 further clarification from the institution as they may deem necessary. Although it may not be possible to adequately describe all the factors to be assessed during the on-site visit, some of the common ones are the following: 

Outcome of the education provided; 

Quality assurance processes, including internal reviews; 

Assessment; 

(iv) Activities and work of the students;

(v) Entry standards and selection for admission of students; 

(vi) Motivation and enthusiasm of faculty; 

(vii) Qualifications and activities of faculty members; 

(viii) Infrastructure facilities;

 (ix) Laboratory facilities; 

(x) Library facilities; 

(ix) Industry participation;

 (xi) Organisation.

 In order to assist the Evaluation Team in its assessment, the educational institution should arrange for the following: 

(i) Discussions with 

a) the Head of the institute/Heads of Department (HoD)/Programme and course coordinators

 b) a member of the management (to discuss how the programme fits into the overall strategic direction and focus of the institution, and management support for continued funding and development of the programme)

 c) faculty members 

d) alumni (sans Alma Maters) 

e) students

 f) parents 

ii) Availability of the following exhibits 

a) profile of faculty involved in the programme

 b) evidence that the results of assessment of course outcomes and programme outcomes are being applied to the review and ongoing improvement of programme effectiveness

c) list of publications, consultancy and sponsored/funded research projects by programme faculty

 d) sample materials for theory and laboratory courses 

e) sample test /semester examination question papers for all courses 

f) sample of test/semester examination answer scripts projects, assignments, (including at least one excellent, one good and one marginal pass for each examination) question papers and evidences related to assessment tools for the COs and the Pos

 g) student records of three immediate batches of graduates

 h) sample project and design reports (excellent, good and marginal pass) by students 

i) sample student feedback form

 j) sample for industry- institute interaction

 k) results of quality assurance reviews

 l) records of employment/higher studies of graduates 

m) records of academic support and other learning activities

 n) any other documents that the Evaluation Team/NBA may request 

(iii) visits to 

 a) classrooms

 b) laboratories pertaining to the programme

 c) central and department library

 d) computer centre

 e) hostel and dispensary 

The Evaluation Team should conduct an exit meeting with the Management Representative, the Head of the institute, the Head of Department and other key officials at the end of the onsite visit to present its findings (strengths, weaknesses. and scope for the improvement). The institution will be given a chance to withdraw one or more programmes from the process of accreditation. In this case, the Head of the institution will have to submit the withdrawal in writing to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Team during the exit meeting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *