K.J.Burle1, K.I.Nargatti2 and Dr.S.S.Ahankari3 A NOVEL AND SIMPLIFIED APPROACH OF ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES IN COGNITIVE, PSYCHOMOTOR AND AFFECTIVE DOMAINS K.J.Burle1, K.I.Nargatti2 and Dr.S.S.Ahankari3 1Asst. Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, ADCET, Ashta. 2Asst. Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, ADCET, Ashta. 3Assoc. Professor, School of Mechanical Engineering, VIT Vellore.

Summary of Graduate Attributes What skills are expected to be exhibited by the students?......... Engineering knowledge Problem analysis Design & Development of Solutions Investigation of Complex Problem Modern tool usage Individual & team work Communication Project management & finance Environment& sustainability Ethics Engineer in society Lifelong learning K S A

1] Separate COs (for theory and lab courses) Expected Course Outcomes… Demonstrate hydraulic and pneumatic system components.(K2 S3 A2) Is it easy to assess all three domains together? Which tools? What is the contribution for each domain? Methodology that we adopted.. 1] Separate COs (for theory and lab courses) 2] Target is set for each CO 3] In addition to traditional tools, new rubrics are drafted for assessment of three domains 4] Policies for assessment and attainment of COs 5] Contribution of course in PO attainment

ME311_1 Explain and draw different ISO/JIC symbols used in hydraulic and pneumatic circuits,(K2) ME311_2 Explain safety regulations and troubleshooting in hydraulic and pneumatic system,(K2) ME311_3 Explain fluidics and their application,(K2) ME311_4 Demonstrate hydraulic and pneumatic system components,(K3) ME311_5 Construct the hydraulic and pneumatic circuits for given application.(K3) For theory course ME362_1 Explain construction and working of various components of fluid power systems. (K2) ME362_2 Demonstrate the basic fluid power, hydraulic, Pneumatic circuits for given application.(K2) ME362_3 Use the Hydraulic & Pneumatic trainer kit and simulation software effectively (S3) ME362_4 Communicate effectively about laboratory work both orally and in writing journals.(S2) ME362_5 Engage in independent updating in the context of specialized technical knowledge. (A2) For Lab Course

Theory Course Outcome Assessment Process & Tools Course Outcomes Set Target Level (CO) Assessment Assessment through Exam (90%) Rubric Assessment (10%) University Examination (80%) Internal Tests (20%) Course End Survey (K only) Target Level Students scoring above 60% marks (K) Average of grade (A) 1 >=60% >=2 2 >=70% >=3 3 >=80% >=4

Lab Course Outcome Assessment Process & Tools Course Outcomes Set Target Level (CO) Assessment Assessment through OE (70%) Assessment through Rubric(30%) University OE Internal OE Course (Lab) End Survey Lab Rubric Target Level Percentage of students scoring 60% marks (K) Average of grading (S) (A) 1 >=60% >= 2 2 >=70% >= 3 3 >=80% >= 4

CO Attainment through Internal Exams (a) Attainment through Uni. Exam. Result = 97% (b) Attainment through Exam (c)=(20% of a + 80% of b) Attainment through CES (d) Target Final Attainment (90% of c+ 10% of d) Status ME311_1 1.5 3 2.7 2.73 Attained ME311_2 2 2.8 2.82 ME311_3 ME311_4 1 2.6 2.44 Not ME311_5 2.4 2.36 COs Uni. POE (a) Internal (b) (c) = 70% of Avg. of (a,b) CES (d) LER (e) (f) = Avg. of (d,e) (30% of K, 100% of S,A) CO Target Final Attainment (c+f) Status ME362_1 3 2.1 0.9 Attained ME362_2 ME362_3 -- 2 2.5 ME362_4 ME362_5

Conclusion -Paper has attempted to simplify the assessment of outcomes in three domains. -It makes very clear to all stakeholders to understand to what level the students are expected to reach to. -Eases the task of a faculty to set the targets separately for every CO. -This process also assists in proper course-PO mapping and brings the realistic PO attainment at the end. REFERENCES:- [1]International Engineering Alliance (2013), Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies v3. http://www.washingtonaccord.org/ [2] B. S. Bloom (1956), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc. [3]A. Rugarcia, R.M. Felder, D.R. Woods, J.E. Stice(2000), The Future of Engineering Education I. A Vision for a New Century,Chem. Engr. Education, 34(1), 16–25. [4]NBA-SAR For Engineering Programs of Tier – II Institutions, June 2015, http://www.nbaind.org/En/1079-self-assessment-report-tier-ii.aspx [5]Accreditation Manual for UG Engineering Programmes (Tier-II), http://www.nbaind.org/Files/NBA%20- %20Tier%20II%20Manual.pdf [6] R A Abdullah, O K Rahmat, “Achievement of Program Outcomes Using Assessment Plan”, Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 18 (2011), 87-93 [7]A A Mutalib al. et.(2012) “Measurement and Evaluation of Program Outcomes in the Civil Engineering Courses”, Procedia Behavioral Sciences 60, 333 – 342. [8]S. Ahankari, A. Jadhav (2018), A novel approach of software based rubrics in formative and summative assessment for attainment of affective and psychomotor domains among the engineering under graduates - Focusing accreditation across pan India, 2018 IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp.426-430