This system computes Course Outcome (CO) Attainment based on Outcome Based Education (OBE) principles aligned with NBA/NAAC guidelines.
The attainment process integrates:
The system automatically:
Faculty members are not required to perform manual calculations.
At the Course Offering level, the faculty member is responsible for validating the academic configuration and initiating the attainment process for the respective course and department.
Faculty members do not manually enter student marks into the system. All assessment data is centrally uploaded in bulk at the academic-year level. The system performs automatic computation of attainment levels based on pre-configured mappings and uploaded marks.
| Direct Assessment (DA) | Indirect Assessment (IA) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assessment Tool | Component | Component Weightage | DA Weightage | Assessment Tool | Weightage |
| Continuous Internal Evaluation (CIE) | CAT-I & CAT-II | 75% | 40% |
Course End Survey – CES (Feedback on course outcomes collected from students) |
100% |
| AAT | 25% | ||||
| Semester End Examination (SEE) | 60% | Total (CES) | 100% | ||
| Total (CIE + SEE) | 100% | ||||
| Weightage of Direct Assessment (DA) is 90% | Weightage of Indirect Assessment (IA) is 10% | ||||
| TOTAL = DA + IA = 100% | |||||
For each Course Outcome (CO), student performance is analyzed question-wise based on the predefined CO–Question mapping. The percentage attainment for each assessment component is determined by evaluating how many students achieve the prescribed threshold value.
This ensures that attainment reflects the proportion of students who demonstrate satisfactory achievement of the mapped Course Outcome.
The threshold value is not arbitrarily fixed. Instead, it is dynamically computed relative to the overall class performance.
Threshold Calculation:
By defining the threshold as 60% of the class average, the system adapts to variations in exam difficulty and cohort performance, thereby ensuring fair and context-sensitive evaluation.
Since two Continuous Assessment Tests (CAT-I and CAT-II) are conducted, the better performance between the two is considered for attainment calculation. This approach promotes academic improvement and recognizes progressive learning.
Only the higher percentage between CAT-I and CAT-II contributes to the Continuous Internal Evaluation (CIE) computation.
The Continuous Internal Evaluation (CIE) combines the best CAT performance and Alternative Assessment Tools (AAT) using predefined internal weightages.
Here:
This blended model ensures both written examinations and continuous learning activities contribute to attainment.
The computed percentage attainment is then translated into a standardized Attainment Level (0–3 scale) to ensure uniform reporting across courses and departments.
| Percentage Range | Attainment Level |
| ≥ 70% | Level 3 |
| 60–69% | Level 2 |
| 50–59% | Level 1 |
| < 50% | Level 0 |
This classification provides a clear interpretation of performance levels and facilitates benchmarking against institutional targets.
The final Direct Assessment value integrates both Continuous Internal Evaluation (CIE) and Semester End Examination (SEE) levels according to institutional weightage policy.
Where:
This distribution ensures that summative assessment (SEE) carries higher weightage while still recognizing the importance of continuous evaluation.
The resulting DA value (on a 0–3 scale) is later combined with Indirect Assessment to compute the overall Course Outcome attainment.
Indirect Assessment is based on:
Survey responses are converted into Attainment Levels.
Where:
→ Status = YES
Else → Status = NO
Definition of Course Outcomes (COs), CO–Question Mapping, CO–PO Matrix configuration, and Target Level setup.
Internal (CAT-I, CAT-II, AAT) and External (SEE) marks are uploaded in bulk at the Academic Year level.
Faculty verifies configuration, offers the course to the department, and initiates attainment calculation.
System computes Percentage, Attainment Levels, Direct Assessment (DA), Indirect Assessment (IDA), and Final CO Attainment automatically.
CO Analysis, Target Comparison, PDF Report Generation, and formulation of Corrective Action Plan for improvement.
The following example demonstrates how Course Outcome attainment is calculated for a department with 10 students, based on the actual assessment structure:
Suppose 7 students scored ≥ 11 marks.
CIE combines Best CAT (75%) and AAT (25%):
Since 72.5% ≥ 70%, CIE Level = 3
50% corresponds to Level 1
Assume Course End Survey gives IDA Level = 2.5
Assume Target Level = 2.1
The Course Outcome has NOT attained the target level.
Corrective measures such as remedial classes, tutorial sessions, and assessment strategy refinement must be implemented to improve attainment.
This example demonstrates the complete step-by-step CO attainment calculation process implemented in the system using the 30–30–10–60 evaluation structure.
| Component | Value / Percentage | Attainment Level |
|---|---|---|
| CAT-I | 70% | — |
| CAT-II | 60% | |
| AAT | 80% | |
| CIE Percentage | 72.5% | Level 3 |
| SEE Percentage | 50% | Level 1 |
| Direct Assessment (DA) | 1.8 | — |
| Indirect Assessment (IDA) | 2.5 | — |
| Final CO Attainment | 1.87 | Target = 2.1 ❌ Not Attained |
This table summarizes the complete computation of Course Outcome attainment for the selected department (10 students).