UG Engineering Tier-I
REVIEW OF DRAFT SAR ( Criteria 2,4 and 5 ) of CE Dept
Name of the Institution: Gudlavalleru Engineering College, Gudlavalleru
Name of the Program:B.Tech Civil Engineering
Criterion 2: Program Curriculum and Teaching – Learning Processes (100)
Marks Awarded Overall
Max. Observations of Evaluators
S.No. Sub Criteria Evaluation Guidelines Grade
Marks Marks Total Marks (Provide Justifications/ Reasons)
(Y,C,W,D
2.1. Program Curriculum 30 Suggested to use
Process used to demonstrate how the program curriculum is evolved and 8 8 Consolidation instead of
State the process for designing the
2.1.1.
program curriculum
10 periodically reviewed considering the POs and PSOs. Also consider the Analysis, Add IE(I)
involvement of the Industry Inputs from Professional
Refer to SAR: Expectation in 2.1.2 & 2.1.3 is that the curriculum is well
5 5 bodies,Add Project in all
2.1.2. Structure of the Curriculum 5
balanced structure & appropriate for a degree program POs.
State the components of the Refer to SAR: Expectation in 2.1.2 & 2.1.3 is that the curriculum is well
5 5 26
2.1.3. 5
curriculum balanced structure & appropriate for a degree program
State the process used to identify 8 8
extent of compliance of the
curriculum for attaining the Program Process used to identify extent of compliance of curriculum for attaining
2.1.4. 10
Outcomes(POs) & Program Specific POs & PSOs
Outcomes(PSOs)
2.2. Teaching-Learning Processes 70
A. Adherence to Academic Calendar (2)
2 Consolidated tables of
B. Pedagogical initiatives (2) 1 all the students who
C. Methodologies to support weak students and encourage bright participated in various
Describe the Process followed to 1
2.2.1 15 students(2) events should be kept in
improve quality of Teaching Learning D. Quality of classroom teaching (Observation in a Class) (2)
1 eSAR,
E. Conduct of experiments (Observation in Lab )(2) 10 Activities conducted for
1
F. Continuous Assessment in the laboratory (3)
2 bright students should
G. Student feedback on teaching learning process and actions taken (2) 2 be included
A. Process for internal semester question paper setting, evaluation and 2 It is suggested to kept
effective process implementation (3)
Quality of end semester examination,
B. Process to ensure questions from outcomes/learning levels perspective analysis of a single
2.2.2. internal semester question papers, 15 1
assignments and evaluation
(2) 45 subject covering all the
C. Evidence of COs coverage in tests/ mid-term tests (5)
4 9 mid examinations and
D. Quality of Assignment and its relevance to COs (5)
2 SEE
1
UG Engineering Tier-I
A. Identification of projects and allocation methodology to Faculty (2) 1 It is suggested to add a
B. Types and relevance of the projects and their contribution towards 2 image of student project
attainment of POs and PSOs(2) choice form.
C. Project related to Industry (3)
2.2.3. Quality of student projects 20 1 It is suggested to add
D. Process for monitoring and evaluation (2)
2 14 photographs of working
E. Process to assess individual and team performance (3) models.
2
F. Quality of completed projects/working prototypes (5)
3
G. Evidences of papers published /Awards received by projects etc. (3) 3
A. Industry supported laboratories (2) It is suggested to
0
B. Industry involvement in the program design and Curriculum (3) 3 collaborate with industry
2.2.4.
Initiatives related to industry
10 3 and conduct some
interaction C. Industry involvement in partial delivery of any regular courses for 0
students (3) experiments .Arrange
D. Impact analysis of industry institute interaction and actions taken 0 lectures to students by
thereof (2) industry persons related to
regular courses
A. Industrial training/tours for students (2)
2 7 Concentrate on impact
Initiatives related to industry
B. Industrial internship /summer training of more than two weeks and 3 analysis
2.2.5. 10 post training Assessment (3)
internship/summer training
C. Impact analysis of industrial training (2) 0
D. Student feedback on initiative (3)
2
Total of Criterion 2: 100 Overall Marks and Grade for Criterion2:
69
2
UG Engineering Tier-I
Criterion 4: Students’ Performance (100)
Marks Awarded Overall
Max. Observations of Evaluators
S.No. Sub Criteria Evaluation Guidelines Grade
Marks Marks Total Marks (Provide Justifications/ Reasons)
(Y,C,W,D)
A. >= 90% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis during The average assessment
the previous three academic years starting from current academic year (20) value obtained is 68.3.
B. >= 80% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis during
the previous three academic years starting from current academic year (18)
14 14
4.1. Enrolment Ratio (20) 20 C. >= 70% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis during
14
the previous three academic years starting from current academic year(16)
D. >= 60% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average basis
during the the previous three academic yearsstarting from current
academic year(14)
E. Otherwise ‘0’.
Success Rate in the stipulated period
4.2. 20
of the program
Success rate without backlogs inany
SI= (Number of students who graduated from the program without
Semester/year ofstudy
repeat(s) in any course)/(Number of students admitted in the first year of 6.9
4.2.1. 15 that batch and actually admitted in 2nd year via lateral entry and separate
Without Backlog means: No
division, if applicable)
10.7
repeat(s) in any course in any
Average SI = Mean of success index (SI) for past three batches
semester/yearof study
Success rate without backlogs in any year of study = 15 × Average SI 10.7
SI= (Number of students who graduated from the program in the
Success rate in stipulated period stipulated period of course duration)/(Number of students admitted in the 3.8
(actual duration of the program) first year of that batch and actually admitted in 2nd year via lateral entry
4.2.2. 5
[Total of with Backlog + without and separate division, if applicable)
Backlog] Average SI = mean of success index (SI) for past three batches
Success rate = 5 × Average SI
Academic Performance = Average API (Academic Performance Index)
API = ((Mean of 2nd Year Grade Point Average of all successful Students on
a 10 point scale) or (Mean of the percentage of marks of all successful
4.3.
Academic Performance in Second
10 students in Second Year/10)) x (successful students/number of students
6.62 6.62 6.62
Year
appeared in the examination)
Successful students are those who are permitted to proceed to the third
year
3
UG Engineering Tier-I
Assessment Points = 30 × average placement , i.e., (P1+P2+P3)/3
Placement Index (P) =[ (x + y +z)/N]; Placements and
where,x=NumberofstudentsplacedincompaniesorGovernmentsector
Placement, Higher studies and higher studies are
4.4.
Entrepreneurship
30 through on/off campusrecruitment 15
y = Number of students admitted to higher studies with valid qualifying 15 15 weak, proofs should
scores (GATE or equivalent State or National level tests, GRE, GMAT etc.) z
= No. of students turned entrepreneur in engineering/technology .
be improved, ID
N =Total number of final year students card xerox of the
students of higher
education should be
kept as proof
4.5. Professional Activities 20 Suggested to improve ,
number of activities at
Professional societies/chapters and
A. Availability & activities of professional societies/chapters (3) 2 least three activities per
4.5.1. 5
organizing engineering events B. Number, quality of engineering events (organized at institute, Level- 1 3 semester
Institute/State/National/International) (2)
A. Quality & Relevance of the contents and Print Material (3) 2
Publication of technical magazines,
4.5.2.
newsletters, etc.
5 3 10
B. Participation of Students from the program (2) 1
A. Events within the state (2)
Participation in inter-institute events 1
4.5.3. by students of the program of study 10 B. Events outside the state (3) 4
1
(at other institutions)
C. Prizes/awards received in such events (5) 2
Total of Criterion 4: 100 Overall Marks and Grade for Criterion4:
56.32
4
UG Engineering Tier-I
Criterion 5: Faculty Information and Contributions (200)
Marks Awarded Overall
Max. Observations of Evaluators
S.No. Sub Criteria Evaluation Guidelines Grade
Marks Marks Total Marks (Provide Justifications/ Reasons)
(Y,C,W,D)
Marks to be given proportionally from a maximum of 20 to a minimum Assessment value
of 10 for average SFR between 15:1 to 25:1, and zero for average obtained is 23.7
SFRhigher than 25:1. Marks distribution is given asbelow:
< = 15 - 20Marks
< = 17 - 18Marks 10 10 10
< = 19 - 16Marks
< = 21 - 14Marks
< = 23 - 12Marks
< = 25 - 10Marks
>25 - 0Marks
5.1. Student-Faculty Ratio (SFR) 20
Cadre Proportion Marks =
Assessment value
AF1 + AF2 x 0.6 + AF3 x 0.4 x10 obtained is 19.27
5.2. Faculty Cadre Proportion 20
RF1 RF2 RF3 20 20 20
• If AF1 = AF2= 0 then zeromarks
• Maximum marks to be limited if it exceeds20
(Refer calculation inSAR)
FQ = 2.0 x [{10X +4Y}/F] where
11 11 11 Assessment value
5.3. Faculty Qualification 20 obtained is 10.83
5.4 Faculty Retention A. ≥ 90% of required Faculties retained during the period of assessment 06 06 06 Assessment value
keeping CAYm2 as base year (10)
obtained is 65.7%
B. ≥ 75% of required Faculties retained during the period of assessment
keeping CAYm2 as base year (8)
5
UG Engineering Tier-I
E. Otherwise (0)
A. Specialization
B. ResearchPublications
6 6 6 Suggested to involve the
Faculty competencies in correlation
5.5.
to Program Specific Criteria
10 C. CourseDevelopments junior faculty also in
D. Other relevantpoints doing consultancy and
guide them to register
for more courses in
NPTEL & MOOCs.
A. Statement of clear goals, use of appropriate methods, significance of 2 5 5 Suggested to make
results, effective presentation and reflective presentation (4)
Innovations by the Faculty in B. Availability of work on Institute Website (2)
working models with
5.6.
Teaching and Learning 10
1 support of students
C. Availability of work for peer review and critique (2) 1
D. Reproducibility and Reusability by other scholars for further 1
development (2)
Faculty as participants in Faculty For each year: Assessment = 3 × Sum/0.5RF 15 15 10
5.7. development /training activities 15 Average assessment over previous three years starting from CAYm1 Suggested to attend more
/STTPs (Marks limited to 15)
training programs
organized by premier
institutes
5.8. Research and Development 75
A. Number of quality publications in refereed/SCI Journals, citations, 8 12
Books/Book Chapters etc. (15)
5.8.1. Academic Research 20
B. PhD awarded during the assessment period while working in the 4
institute (5) Improve research
0 0 publications in SCI or
Funded research from outside; Cumulative for CAYm1, CAYm2 and CAYm3:
Amount >50 Lakh – 20Marks scopus indexed journals
5.8.2 Sponsored Research 20 Amount > 40 Lakh and <= 50 Lakh – 15 Marks and to complete the PhDs
Amount > 30 Lakh and <= 40 Lakh – 10 Marks
as early as possible.
Amount >= 15 Lakh and <= 30 Lakh – 5 Marks
Amount <15 Lakh – 0Mark 42 Faculty are advised to
A. ProductDevelopment 10 10 apply for sponsored
B. Researchlaboratories
5.8.3 Development Activities 15 projects. All the faculty
C. Instructionalmaterials
D. Working models/charts/monogramsetc. are advised to involve in
Consultancy; Cumulative Cumulative for CAYm1, CAYm2 and CAYm3: 20 20 consultancy activities
Amount >10 Lakh – 20Marks
Amount >= 8 Lakh and <= 10Lakh – 15Marks
Amount >= 6 Lakh and<8Lakh – 10 Marks
5.8.4. Consultancy (From Industry) 20
Amount >= 4 Lakh and <6Lakh – 5 Marks
Amount >= 2 Lakh and <4Lakh – 2 Mark
Amount <2 Lakh – 0Mark
A. A well defined performance appraisal and development system 4 7
instituted for all the assessment years (5) 7
6
UG Engineering Tier-I
Faculty Performance Appraisal and 3
5.9. 10 B. Its implementation and effectiveness (5)
Development System (FPADS)
Provision of Visiting /Adjunct/Emeritus faculty etc.(1)
Visiting/Adjunct/Emeritus Faculty 1 10 10
5.10. 10
etc. Minimum 50 hours per year interaction 9 One faculty for last two
per year to obtain three marks : 3 x 3 = 9 years and two faculty
members are there for
present year
Total of Criterion 5: 200 Overall Marks and Grade for Criterion5:
127
Overall Impression on Criteria II,IV &V:
Criteria 2 : 80% of filling of SAR is completed. Modifications are suggested in the remaining 20 %
Criteria 4 : 90 % of filling of SAR is completed. Data to be improved in the remaining 10 %
Criteria 5 : 100 % of filling of SAR is completed.
Any Other Comment
Signature (Program Evaluator 1) Signature (Program Evaluator 2)
K.Ch.KISHOR KUMAR D.KIRAN PRASAD
Associate Professor of ME Dept Associate Professor of ME Dept
