International

Journal of Electronics and

Communication
Engineering
& Technology (IJECET),
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
OF
ELECTRONICS
AND ISSN
0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 06-12 IAEME

COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY (IJECET)

ISSN 0976 6464(Print)

ISSN 0976 6472(Online)
Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 06-12
IAEME: http://www.iaeme.com/IJECET.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2015): 7.9817 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com

IJECET
IAEME

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON ASSESSMENT OF CO

ATTAINMENT FOR A DIPLOMA COURSE
Surendar Rawat#1,
#

Shruti Karkare*2

Instrumentation Department, V. E. S. Polytechnic

Sindhi Society, Chembur, Mumbai, India

Electronics and Communication Technology Department, V. E. S. Polytechnic

Sindhi Society, Chembur, Mumbai, India

ABSTRACT
The key aspects in Outcome-Based Education (OBE) is the assessment of course outcomes.
At the initial stage of OBE implementation, the Course Outcomes (COs) for each course are defined
based on the Programme Outcome (POs) and other requirements. At the end of each course, the
COs needs to be assessed and evaluated, to check whether it has been attained or not. This paper
describes the background of the method used to assess the attainment of the COs and the results
produced for the Applied Physics course in diploma engineering. This assessment was conducted for
one of the programs of first year diploma with strength of 60 students. The method uses data that has
been obtained from students marks in final theory and practical exams, test, assignments, project
and other formal assessments. A computerised system using spreadsheet has been developed based
on this method to expedite the analysis process. The findings are then used for continuous quality
improvement.
Keywords: OBE, CO, NBA, Applied Physics Course, Assessment, Attainment.
I. INTRODUCTION
The movement towards Outcome Based Education (OBE) has been one of the most important
trends in engineering education in recent years and has been adopted in USA and Australia for many
years. For the last few years, Indian education system has already adopted Outcome Based Education
(OBE), with the local accreditation body, National Board of Accreditation [1]. A formal definition of
OBE can be stated as a comprehensive approach to organizing and operating an education system
that is focused in and defined by the successful demonstrations of learning sought from each student
6

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN
0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 06-12 IAEME

(Spady, 1994) [2], [3]. Thus for OBE implementation, initially it is necessary that the desired or
defined outcomes are determined and then according to defined outcomes, programme curriculum,
teaching and learning methodology and supporting facilities are designed. During the course of the
programme, various measurement methods are used to measure the attainment of outcomes. The
assessment of CO attainment largely depends on the students performance output or marks obtained
in final theory and practical examination, test and submission of assignments which indicates
students learning achievements. Therefore, it is necessary and important to carry out a proper
attainment method in order to measure student learning achievement and to predict the students
performance in future.
The purpose of this paper is to measure the students CO attainment in Applied Physics
course for first year diploma. The measurement is based on the assignment marks and final result of
the student.
II. OBE AND NBA
Outcome based education is an approach to education in which decisions about the
curriculum are driven by the exit learning outcomes that the students should display
at the end of the course. The National Board of Accreditation (NBA) has adopted OBE approach and
has laid out guidelines for institutions to pursue excellence in order to get accreditation. Those
guidelines are followed to define the programme outcomes and the course outcomes.
Programme Outcomes
Programme Outcomes are narrower statements that describe what students are expected to
know and be able to do upon the graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviour
that students acquire in their matriculation through the programme [1].

A.

Course Outcomes
Course Outcomes are narrower statements that describe what students are expected to know,
and be able to do at the end of each course. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviour that
students acquire in their matriculation through the course [1].

B.

Assessment
Assessment is one or more processes, carried out by the institution, that identify, collect, and
prepare data to evaluate the achievement of programme educational objectives and programme
outcomes [1].

C.

Attainment
Attainment is the action or fact of achieving a standard result towards accomplishment of
desired goals. Primarily attainment is the standard of academic attainment as observed by test or
examination result.
D.

III.

METHODOLOGY [4],[6]

To measure the attainment of Course Outcome, the Course Outcome should be mapped to
Programme Outcome. The method of mapping should be is such a way that the attainment of Course
Outcome should contribute to the attainment of Program Outcome. CO attainment is calculated by
using the existing data obtained from students mark, for example from the assessment results, test
results and final exam. As the information about the marks is readily and directly available after each
assessment method it is called as direct assessment and sometimes referred as formal assessment.
7

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN
0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 06-12 IAEME

The applied physics course consists of 2 parts, i.e, theory and practicals and this paper
enumerates both the parts of the course. The assessment methods used is grouped into 4 categories:
(1) Final theory exam (2) Tests (3) Assignments (4) Final practical exam. Each of these categories
contributes a certain portion of the marks into some of the COs.
Applied Physics is a major course and is the foundation of all core technology courses and is
compulsory for all the students in the second semester diploma engineering. This course covers basic
electric circuits, semiconductor physics, photoelectricity, X-rays, LASER and physics of
nanoparticles. On average percentage basis, the student performance is evaluated based on course
works (25%) and final examination (75%). The major concern that arises in this course is to produce
students who understand the concepts and use of semiconductors, X-rays, Lasers and
nanotechnology at a level, which enables them to apply this knowledge in engineering [5].
Course Outcomes for Applied Physics are defined and analyzed by module coordinator and they are
as follows:
CO1: Apply laws and principles of electrical circuits.
CO2: Classify solids on the basis of band theory and describe the behaviour of pn junction diode in
forward and reverse bias.
CO3: Describe the principles, characteristics and applications of LASER, photoelectric effect, Xrays and nanoparticles.
CO4: Verify principles/laws by selecting or using proper measuring instruments interpret results
and draw conclusions.
All of the above the Course Outcomes must be linked to Program Outcomes.
Course Outcome Assessment
The CO assessment tools as shown in Table 1, is designed according by module coordinator
considering the weightage distribution of marks allotted in teaching scheme for the course and the
percentage is assigned for each specified CO.

A.

TABLE 1: CO% FROM ASSESSMENT METHODS

Course Outcomes (CO)
Direct Assessment Method
CO1
CO2
CO3
CO4
Final Theory Exam (FTE)
32%
20%
48%
Test (T)
45%
10%
45%
Final Practical Exam (FPE)
30%
10%
20%
40%
Assignment (A)
30%
20%
30%
20%
Average
34%
15%
36%
30%

Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
115%

Thus the CO assessment needs to be calculated as per the direct assessment method. The
sample calculation of CO % distribution for all CO's, for different direct assessment method is as per
the CO defined for the course and according to teaching scheme as shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2: SAMPLE CO % DISTRIBUTION FOR FTE
Topic
1
2
3
4
16
10
18
6
Marks
CO1
CO2
CO3
CO3
CO assessed
32%
20%
48%
CO % distribution

Total
50
100%

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN
0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 06-12 IAEME

As observed from Table 2, CO4 is not attained through Final theory exam (FTE) but the same
is attained through Final practical exam (FPE) and assignments (A) as shown in table 1. Similarly the
CO % distribution for test (T), final practical exam (FPE) and assignments (A) can be done as seen
in Table 1.
The overall percentage distribution of marks for direct assessment methods as per
examination scheme is shown in Table 3, which is further used to calculate final CO attainment.

Assessment

TABLE 3: OVERALL % DISTRIBUTION OF MARKS

FTE
T
FPE
A

Total marks as per Exam Scheme

Overall %

Total

50

12.5

25

12.5

100

50%

12.50%

25%

12.50%

100%

In the examination scheme for Applied Physics course no guidelines are given for assessment
of assignment, hence as per the convenience of course coordinator 10 assignment of 10 marks each
are considered and then converted to 12.50% of total 100%. Here from table 3, it is clear that 12.5
marks allotted to assignment about of total marks of 100.
Apart from the CO assessment methods, the overall percentage distribution for COs is to be
considered for calculation of assessment of COs.
Course Outcome Attainment
Based on the % CO distribution of marks as per teaching and examination scheme of Applied
Physics course, the CO attainment can be obtained. For example the final CO1 attainment using
Table 1 and Table 2 is calculated as

B.

CO1 =

(32% FTE 50%) + (45% T 12.5%)

+ (30% FPE 25%) + (30% A 12.5%)

Similarly CO2, CO3 and CO4 can be calculated.

The normalized formula [6] that can be used for calculation of CO attainment is given below:
CO1 =

(0.32FTE 0.5) + (0.45T 0.125) + (0.3FPE 0.25)

+ (0.3A 0.125)

CO2 =

(0.20FTE 0.5) + (0.10T 0.125) + (0.10FPE 0.25)

+ (0.2A 0.125)

CO3 =

(0.48FTE 0.5) + (0.45T 0.125) + (0.2FPE 0.25)

+ (0.3A 0.125)

CO4 =

(0.4BPE 0.25) + (0.2A 0.125)

where,
FTE is the students Final Theory Exam mark
T is the students Class Test mark
FPE is the students Final Practical Exam mark
A is the students Final Assignment mark.
Let us consider the marks obtained by the 10 students in various assessment methods for
calculation of CO attainment as shown in Table 4.

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN
0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 06-12 IAEME

TABLE 4: STUDENTS MARKS ACCORDING TO ASSESSMENT METHODS

Marks out of 100
Roll No.
Student Name
FTE
T
FPE
A
1
Dilip
45
38
59
79
2
Santosh
42
47
78
78
3
Ajay
23
71
87
76
4
Hitesh
32
18
48
74
5
Arvind
58
30
68
75
6
Prashant
64
37
64
78
7
Chandrashekar
50
66
62
79
8
Suresh
61
30
62
79
9
Avneesh
70
44
75
80
10
Pravin
24
28
68
79

IV.

FINDINGS

As the data of marks for different assessment method is available then it becomes easy to
tabulate the available marks to the respective COs with its percentage as formulated for different
COs. The CO attainment for each outcome for each student is shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5: CO ATTAINMENT ACCORDING TO CO % OF ASSESSMENT METHODS
Course Outcomes
Roll No

Student Name

CO1

CO2

CO3

CO4

Dilip

17

19

Santosh

18

20

10

Ajay

17

17

11

Hitesh

13

14

Arvind

19

10

22

Prashant

20

10

24

Chandrashekar

19

22

Suresh

19

10

22

Avneesh

22

11

26

10

10

Pravin

13

14

In this table, the CO marks for each student according to each CO are presented after using
the normalized formula for calculation of CO attainment. The CO1, CO2, CO3 and CO4 marks for
each student presented in the Table 5 is the marks obtained by considering the average value of CO
percentage from Table 1. Thus for uniformity in calculation we have consider each CO percentage as
100, and then tabulated as shown in Table 6.
10

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN
0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 06-12 IAEME

TABLE 6: CO ATTAINMENT ACCORDING TO CO % OF ASSESSMENT METHODS

Course Outcomes
Roll No

Student Name

CO1

CO2

CO3

CO4

Dilip

49

56

52

26

Santosh

53

58

54

33

Ajay

50

48

46

35

Hitesh

37

43

39

22

Arvind

56

65

61

29

Prashant

59

69

65

28

Chandrashekar

57

62

60

27

Suresh

56

67

62

27

Avneesh

66

76

72

32

10

Pravin

40

43

38

29

To measure the attainment of each Course Outcome, it is vital to decide on the appropriate
value or threshold value or target value of the mark which will indicate the CO is achieved, hence we
have assumed 40% of marks as minimum marks for successful completion of the course as
prescribed by the teaching and examination scheme for Applied Physics course. The average
assessment of CO attainment for the entire 60 students along with the attainment result is shown in
Table 7.
TABLE 7: ASSESSMENT OF CO ATTAINMENT
Course Outcomes

CO1

CO2

CO3

CO4

Average CO % attained
Threshold value
Deviation
CO attainment result

52
40
12
YES

60
40
20
YES

56
40
16
YES

27
40
-13
NO

Thus the statement YES in last row indicates that CO1, CO2, CO3 has been attained
whereas NO for CO4 implies that the target is not achieved.
V. CONCLUSIONS
At the end we calculated the attainment of Course Outcomes for each student of program by
using MS-Office Excel software. It has been observed that CO1, CO2, and CO3 are attained by
students, whereas CO4 is not attained. This happened so because four students were not able to score
any marks during FPT, as a result average attainment of CO4 falls less than 40%. Key remedies has
to be implement in next session to improve the attainment of respective CO, or with the help of
advisory committee the COs can be redefined in order to ensure the achievement of CO attainment
more then set goal and help in producing diploma holder with higher quality.
This study can help as guidance to faculties in calculating their course outcome attainments
and monitoring the students performance in coming sessions as well as improving teaching
efficiency.
11

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN
0976 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 6472(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 06-12 IAEME

REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

6.

National Board of Accreditation Accreditation Manual for Diploma Engineering Programmes

(Tier-II), January 2013.
Margery H. Davis, Outcome-Based Education, JVME 30(3) 2003 AAVMC
Spady, W. (1994) Outcomes Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers, American
Association of School Administration: Arlington, Virginia.
Zamri Mohamed, Mohd Yusof Taib, M.S. Reza, Assessment Method for Course Outcome
and Program Outcome in Outcome Based Education (OBE), Malaysian Technical
Universities Conference on Engineering and Technology, June 28-29, 2010.
Zulkifli Mohd Nopiah, Mohd Noor Baharin, Noorhelyna Razali & Norngainy Mohd Tawil,
An Outcome-Based Approach Analysis Of A Course In Mathematical Engineering,
Seminar Pendidikan Kejuruteraan Kongres, Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran & Alam Bina
(PeKA11) UKM 2011.
Izham Zainal Abidin1, Adzly Anuar2 and Norshah Hafeez Shuaib, Assessing The
Attainment Of Course Outcomes (Co) For An Engineering Course, Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2009), INTI University College,
Malaysia.
Rajasekhar Devarapalli, Saroja Pilli, Prof. Vijayaratnam Naladi and Dr.Srinivasarao
Pallekonda, An Empirical Study To Enhance The Knowledge and Skills Through Training
International Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 4, Issue 4, 2013, pp. 758 - 770, ISSN
Print: 0976-6502, ISSN Online: 0976-6510.

12