OBE Faculty Training Portal

1

OBE Foundations

Bloom's taxonomy · NBA POs · Framework differences · Implementation roadmap

45 min · 10 Qs

Not started

▾

1.1 What is OBE?

Outcomes-Based Education is a learner-centred philosophy where curriculum, teaching, and assessment are all aligned to clearly defined, measurable outcomes students must demonstrate by programme completion. The shift is from what is taught to what is actually learned and demonstrated.

Core Principle: An 'outcome' is a specific, observable, measurable statement of what a student will know, understand, or be able to do at the end of a unit of learning — written in terms of student performance, not teacher activity.

1.2 Bloom's Taxonomy

All Course Outcomes must be anchored to a specific cognitive level using Bloom's revised taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001):

Level	Category	Key Action Verbs
6	Create	Design, Develop, Formulate, Construct, Plan, Generate
5	Evaluate	Judge, Justify, Critique, Assess, Recommend, Defend
4	Analyse	Compare, Differentiate, Examine, Break down, Relate
3	Apply	Solve, Use, Demonstrate, Compute, Implement, Calculate
2	Understand	Explain, Describe, Summarise, Classify, Interpret
1	Remember	Define, List, Name, Recall, State, Identify

NBA Guideline: UG engineering COs should predominantly be at Levels 3 (Apply) and 4 (Analyse). Design courses must include Levels 5–6.

1.3 Vision → Mission → PEO → PO → CO Hierarchy

Level	Description
Institutional Vision & Mission	Broad aspirational statements of the institution's purpose
Programme Educational Objectives (PEOs)	Career/professional accomplishments 3–5 years after graduation (4–6 PEOs)
Programme Outcomes (POs)	What students can do at graduation — NBA mandates all 12 POs
Programme Specific Outcomes (PSOs)	2–3 outcomes unique to the specific engineering programme
Course Outcomes (COs)	5–8 measurable outcomes per course; must map to POs and PSOs

1.4 The 12 NBA Programme Outcomes

PO	Graduate Attribute
PO1	Engineering Knowledge
PO2	Problem Analysis
PO3	Design / Development of Solutions
PO4	Investigation of Complex Problems
PO5	Modern Tool Usage
PO6	Engineer and Society
PO7	Environment and Sustainability
PO8	Ethics
PO9	Individual and Team Work
PO10	Communication
PO11	Project Management and Finance
PO12	Life-Long Learning

1.5 NBA vs NAAC — Key Differences

Parameter	NBA	NAAC
Scope	Programme-level	Institution-level
Key document	Self-Assessment Report (SAR)	Self-Study Report (SSR)
OBE criterion	Criterion 2 (quantitative)	Criterion 1 (qualitative + quantitative)
Data required	3-year CO/PO attainment trend	Evidence of CO-based curriculum design

Interactive Infographic Bloom's Taxonomy Pyramid — click any level to explore

Click any level to explore

Bloom's Revised Taxonomy

Anderson & Krathwohl (2001) revised Bloom's original framework into six cognitive levels — from basic recall at the base to complex creation at the apex. Every CO must be anchored to one specific level using an action verb from that tier.

Create / Evaluate — higher-order, complex

Analyse / Apply — NBA core for UG engineering

Understand / Remember — foundational

For NBA UG engineering, most COs should be at Level 3 (Apply) and Level 4 (Analyse). Design courses must include at least 2 COs at Levels 5–6.

Interactive Infographic Vision → PEO → PO → CO Hierarchy — click each level

🏛

Institutional Vision & Mission

Why the institution exists — the foundation of everything

L0 ▾

🎯

Programme Educational Objectives (PEOs)

Graduate accomplishments 3–5 years after graduation

L1 ▾

🎓

Programme Outcomes (POs) + PSOs

12 NBA-mandated POs — what students can do at graduation

L2 ▾

📋

Course Outcomes (COs)

5–8 per course — measurable, Bloom's-anchored, maps to POs

L3 ▾

Design down, deliver up: Design the curriculum starting from Vision and working downward. When teaching, start from COs and build upward — CO attainment → PO attainment → PEO validation → Mission fulfilled.

Interactive Tool CO Anatomy Builder — type a CO and get instant feedback

Try a preset or type your own:

ACTION VERB

—

KNOWLEDGE / SKILL

—

CONTEXT / STANDARD

—

Bloom's level detected—

Remember

Understand

Apply

Analyse

Evaluate

Create

Reference Tool Bloom's Action Verb Bank — filter by course type, click to copy

Click any verb to copy to clipboard ✓ Copied

Process Infographic CO Design & Review Governance — Construction and Escalation pathways

STEP 1 — EXPERT INPUT (before drafting)

🏭 Industry experts

Skill gaps, tools, job roles

🎓 Academic experts

Research frontiers, curriculum

🏅 Professional societies

IEI, ASME, IEEE, BIS standards

✏️

CO Drafting — Course Faculty

5–8 COs using Bloom's template

Course faculty

👥

Department CO-PO Review Committee

HOD + 2 senior faculty — Bloom's and PO coverage check

HOD + peers

🛡

IQAC Sign-off

Institution-wide consistency and NBA/NAAC compliance

IQAC

⚖️

Board of Studies (BoS)

Formal ratification — COs enter the curriculum

BoS

2

Writing Course Outcomes

CO anatomy · Bloom's alignment · Common mistakes · CO-PO mapping strength

50 min · 12 Qs

Not started

▾

2.1 Anatomy of a Well-Written CO

Every well-written CO has three parts:

Element	What it means	Example
Action verb	Single Bloom's verb — observable and measurable	Design
Knowledge/skill	Specific content or skill demonstrated	a heat exchanger for given thermal specifications
Context/standard	Conditions or performance standard	using IS standards and sustainability considerations

Well-written CO example: "Design a heat exchanger for given thermal specifications using relevant IS standards and sustainability considerations." [BL5, maps to PO1, PO3, PO7]

2.2 Common CO Writing Mistakes

Mistake	Wrong	Correct
Vague verb	Understand thermodynamics	Explain the laws of thermodynamics and their engineering applications
Multi-verb CO	Analyse and design and evaluate circuits	Split into three COs — one verb each
Topic statement	Unit 3: Fluid Mechanics	Apply Bernoulli's equation to solve problems in pipe flow
Unmeasurable	Appreciate the importance of ethics	Apply ethical frameworks to resolve professional dilemmas
Too many COs	15 COs for a 3-credit course	5–8 COs; one per 5–8 contact hours

2.3 CO–PO Mapping Strength Scale

Strength	Meaning	When to use
3	Substantial	The CO directly and substantially addresses the PO — primary alignment
2	Moderate	The PO is partially addressed as part of achieving the CO
1	Slight	Indirect or minor relevance; marginal connection
—	None	No meaningful relationship — leave cell blank

Mapping guidance: A typical course addresses 6–9 POs meaningfully. Each CO should have 3–6 non-blank mappings. Do not try to map every CO to every PO — this inflates the matrix and makes it meaningless.

2.4 CO Approval Workflow

Faculty writes draft COs using the template
Department CO-PO Review Committee (HOD + 2 senior faculty) reviews for Bloom's alignment
IQAC checks for programme-level consistency and NBA/NAAC compliance
Approved COs are entered into the course file and LMS
Any mid-semester revision requires written IQAC approval

3

CO-PO Mapping & Attainment

Matrix building · Direct/indirect attainment · Formula · Gap analysis · 3-year trend

60 min · 15 Qs

Not started

▾

3.1 The CO-PO Matrix

Rows = Course Outcomes; Columns = PO1–PO12 + PSO1–PSO2. Each cell holds the strength (1/2/3) of the CO–PO relationship. The average row at the bottom shows how strongly this course addresses each PO.

CO	PO1	PO2	PO3	PO4	PO5	PO6	PO7	PO10	PSO1
CO1	3	2	—	—	—	—	—	—	2
CO2	2	3	—	2	—	—	—	—	3
CO3	2	2	3	—	1	—	2	—	2
CO4	1	3	2	3	2	—	—	1	3
CO5	1	2	2	—	—	2	1	3	1
Avg	1.8	2.4	2.3	2.5	1.5	2.0	1.5	2.0	2.2

3.2 CO Attainment Formula

CO Attainment = (Direct Attainment × 0.80) + (Indirect Attainment × 0.20)

Direct attainment = % of students scoring ≥ threshold marks in CO-mapped assessments
Indirect attainment = Average score from course-end student feedback survey (CO-wise)
Typical threshold: ≥ 50% of CO-mapped marks
Typical target: ≥ 60% of students should attain each CO

3.3 Worked Example

Step	Calculation
CO-mapped marks (3 CIE questions)	5 + 5 + 10 = 20 marks
Threshold (50%)	≥ 10 marks
Students scoring ≥ 10	52 out of 70
Direct attainment	(52/70) × 100 = 74.3%
Indirect attainment (survey)	68%
CO2 Attainment	(74.3 × 0.80) + (68 × 0.20) = 73.0% → ATTAINED ✓

3.4 NBA 3-Year Trend Requirement

Term	Meaning
CAY	Current Academic Year (year of SAR submission)
CAYP	Current Academic Year Previous (one year before)
CAYPD	Current Academic Year Previous to Previous (two years before)

NBA Scoring: Three years of data with ≥60% attainment earns maximum marks in Criterion 2. One year of data earns partial marks only.

Use this interactive matrix to map your own COs to POs. Click any cell to cycle 0 → 1 → 2 → 3. Edit CO names in the fields below the matrix.

4

Assessment Design & Question Mapping

Constructive alignment · CIE/SEE question tagging · Rubric design · Corrective actions

55 min · 12 Qs

Not started

▾

4.1 Constructive Alignment

Every CIE/SEE question must be aligned to the CO it tests, AND the cognitive demand of the question must match the Bloom's level of that CO. Misalignment — writing a CO at Level 5 but testing only Level 1 — invalidates the entire OBE process.

The rule: If your CO says "Design…" (Level 6), your assessment question must ask the student to actually design something — not describe or recall what design means.

4.2 CIE Question Tagging Format (NBA Required)

              Q1. [CO1 – BL2] Describe the stress–strain relationship in ductile materials. (5 marks)

              Q2. [CO2 – BL3] Calculate the bending stress in a beam carrying 10 kN/m UDL over 4m span. (10 marks)

              Q3. [CO3 – BL4] Compare failure modes of ductile and brittle materials under tensile loading. (10 marks)

4.3 Rubric Design for CO Attainment

Level	Score	Descriptor
Excellent	4	Fully demonstrates the CO; exceeds expected standard with no significant errors
Good	3	Demonstrates the CO with minor errors; meets expected standard
Satisfactory	2	Partially demonstrates the CO; some significant gaps
Needs Improvement	1	Attempts the CO but with major errors or misunderstanding
Not Demonstrated	0	No evidence of CO achievement

4.4 Corrective Action by Attainment Level

Attainment	Action
≥ Target (e.g., ≥60%)	Document "CO attained" in course file — no action needed
50–59%	Conduct one additional tutorial/problem-solving session; re-assess informally
40–49%	Formal remedial class; revised teaching strategy for next offering
<40%	Mandatory gap analysis; CO review; escalate to HOD; present at IQAC meeting

5

Reporting & Continuous Improvement

CO/PO attainment reports · NBA SAR · NAAC SSR · CQI loop · IQAC audit trail

45 min · 10 Qs

Not started

▾

5.1 CO Attainment Report — Required Sections

Course details (name, code, credits, semester, faculty, year)
Course Outcomes with Bloom's level
CO-PO/PSO mapping matrix
Assessment plan — CO-wise marks allocation
Mark entry summary (CO-wise per student)
Direct attainment calculation with threshold
Indirect attainment (course-end survey results)
Overall CO attainment and verdict (attained / not attained)
Gap analysis and corrective actions
Faculty signature + HOD countersignature

5.2 NAAC SSR — OBE Evidence by Sub-criterion

NAAC Sub-criterion	OBE Evidence Required
1.1 — Curriculum design	CO statements in syllabi; BoS minutes showing CO review
1.2 — Academic flexibility	Curriculum updates driven by CO attainment gap analysis
2.6 — Student performance	CO and PO attainment data; CO-mapped assessment samples
6.5 — Quality assurance	IQAC minutes; OBE policy; faculty training records

5.3 CQI — Closing the Loop

Identify COs consistently not attained (2+ years)
Root cause: poorly written CO? wrong teaching method? misaligned assessment?
Implement change: revise CO, change teaching, redesign assessment
Present improvement plan to Board of Studies
Document explicitly — which CO attainment data triggered the change
Monitor in the next offering — verify improvement

The accreditation mantra: Accreditors do not just want high numbers. They want evidence that you act on the data. A course with 55% attainment that has documented corrective action and shows improvement next year is more compelling than one claiming 90% with no supporting evidence.

Audience	Recommended modules	Focus
Faculty (course designers)	All 5 modules	CO writing, mapping, assessment, reporting
HODs / Programme coordinators	Modules 1, 3, 5	PO attainment, CQI, SAR/SSR data
IQAC administrators	Modules 1, 5	Compliance, audit trail, documentation
External reviewers	Modules 3, 5	Attainment computation, trend data

Module	NBA Criterion	NAAC Criterion
1 — OBE Foundations	Criterion 2.1	1.1
2 — Writing COs	Criterion 2.2	1.2
3 — CO-PO Mapping	Criteria 2.3, 2.4	1.3
4 — Assessment Design	Criterion 3.1	2.6
5 — Reporting & CQI	Criteria 2.5, 9	1.4, 6.5

Outcomes-Based Education
Training for Academic Excellence

1.1 What is OBE?

1.2 Bloom's Taxonomy

1.3 Vision → Mission → PEO → PO → CO Hierarchy

1.4 The 12 NBA Programme Outcomes

1.5 NBA vs NAAC — Key Differences

2.1 Anatomy of a Well-Written CO

2.2 Common CO Writing Mistakes

2.3 CO–PO Mapping Strength Scale

2.4 CO Approval Workflow

3.1 The CO-PO Matrix

3.2 CO Attainment Formula

3.3 Worked Example

3.4 NBA 3-Year Trend Requirement

4.1 Constructive Alignment

4.2 CIE Question Tagging Format (NBA Required)

4.3 Rubric Design for CO Attainment

4.4 Corrective Action by Attainment Level

5.1 CO Attainment Report — Required Sections

5.2 NAAC SSR — OBE Evidence by Sub-criterion

5.3 CQI — Closing the Loop

Programme Guide

Accreditation coverage

CO-PO Mapping Matrix Tool

CO Attainment Calculator

Attainment Summary

CO	PO1	PO2	PO3	PO4	PO5	PO6	PO7	PO10	PSO1
CO1	3	2	—	—	—	—	—	—	2
CO2	2	3	—	2	—	—	—	—	3
CO3	2	2	3	—	1	—	2	—	2
CO4	1	3	2	3	2	—	—	1	3
CO5	1	2	2	—	—	2	1	3	1
Avg	1.8	2.4	2.3	2.5	1.5	2.0	1.5	2.0	2.2

CO	PO1	PO2	PO3	PO4	PO5	PO6	PO7	PO10	PSO1
CO1	3	2	—	—	—	—	—	—	2
CO2	2	3	—	2	—	—	—	—	3
CO3	2	2	3	—	1	—	2	—	2
CO4	1	3	2	3	2	—	—	1	3
CO5	1	2	2	—	—	2	1	3	1
Avg	1.8	2.4	2.3	2.5	1.5	2.0	1.5	2.0	2.2

Outcomes-Based EducationTraining for Academic Excellence

1.1 What is OBE?

1.2 Bloom's Taxonomy

1.3 Vision → Mission → PEO → PO → CO Hierarchy

1.4 The 12 NBA Programme Outcomes

1.5 NBA vs NAAC — Key Differences

2.1 Anatomy of a Well-Written CO

2.2 Common CO Writing Mistakes

2.3 CO–PO Mapping Strength Scale

2.4 CO Approval Workflow

3.1 The CO-PO Matrix

3.2 CO Attainment Formula

3.3 Worked Example

3.4 NBA 3-Year Trend Requirement

4.1 Constructive Alignment

4.2 CIE Question Tagging Format (NBA Required)

4.3 Rubric Design for CO Attainment

4.4 Corrective Action by Attainment Level

5.1 CO Attainment Report — Required Sections

5.2 NAAC SSR — OBE Evidence by Sub-criterion

5.3 CQI — Closing the Loop

Programme Guide

Accreditation coverage

CO-PO Mapping Matrix Tool

CO Attainment Calculator

Attainment Summary

Outcomes-Based Education
Training for Academic Excellence

CO	PO1	PO2	PO3	PO4	PO5	PO6	PO7	PO10	PSO1
CO1	3	2	—	—	—	—	—	—	2
CO2	2	3	—	2	—	—	—	—	3
CO3	2	2	3	—	1	—	2	—	2
CO4	1	3	2	3	2	—	—	1	3
CO5	1	2	2	—	—	2	1	3	1
Avg	1.8	2.4	2.3	2.5	1.5	2.0	1.5	2.0	2.2