"Outcomes based Engineering Education" by Prof ORS Rao

The Journal of Engineering Education July - 2013

1

1. OUTCOME BASED ENGINEERING EDUCATION -NEED OF THE HOUR

Prof. O R S Rao*

*Vice-Chancellor, The ICFAI University, Jharkhand.

1.0 Engineering Education - Expectations

Engineering, as a discipline, has a direct andvital impact on all aspects of people’s life,economic development and the provision ofservices to the society. With engineers facingchallenging expectations, including the abilityto address complex societal problems,engineering education must ensure that thegraduating student obtains the necessary skills

and competencies to be a successfulprofessional engineer. This education mustinclude a strong foundation in mathematics andscience, as well as training in the specificengineering disciplines. As design is a criticallyimportant skill of an engineer, students mustdeal with increasingly complex problems asthey proceed through the educational process.The complexity of modern challenges, facing

Abstract

Low employability of fresh Engineering Graduates, coupled with absence of Premier EngineeringInstitutions in global rankings confirm the malaise of poor quality of Engineering education inIndia. There has been a growing realization that unless ‘quality’ is defined in terms of “LearningOutcomes” , rather than grades and is assessed accordingly , it is difficult to improve the quality ofengineering education in India.

Though the initiative on Outcomes Based Education emanated in the US, now it is embraced byover 47 countries across the globe. Most of the global accreditation agencies in Engineering Education,like ABET and ENAEE have anchored their assessments on Learning Outcomes . WashingtonAccord (WA), set up to improve global mobility in Engineering Education, is focused on LearningOutcomes. India has been a provisional signatory of WA since 2007. Though UGC Regulation onmandatory accreditation of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), 2012 emphasizes the importanceof achievement of Learning Outcomes, it leaves the job of setting them to the HEIs. Adopting OutcomesBased Education will help all stake holders – students, parents, engineering institutions, employersand government not only to improve employability of the graduating engineers but also to tap thehuge global opportunities for engineering talent.

This paper studies the genesis and evolution of Learning Outcomes in Engineering Educationacross the world and suggests a blue print of adoption of it in India.

Keywords: Learning Outcomes, Engineering Education, Accreditation, Globalization,Employability, Mobility, Qualifications Framework


2

engineers also requires that the educationinclude sound foundation in topics such aseconomics, communications, team skills, andthe current global geo-political environment.Engineering Professionals are expected to behonest, impartial and fair in their day-to-dayworking.

Graduating engineering students should beemployable and at the same time, should bequalified to enter a Masters program inEngineering, if they wish. In most cases,the fresh graduates that get into coreengineering jobs may involve in roles like,design, production, sale, service, maintenanceof the product need requisite skills to performthe assigned roles.

Globalisation started demanding mobility ofEngineering qualifications so as to facilitatedeployment of technical skills wherever neededfrom available locations. Mobility of qualificationsalso enables students to pursue higherqualifications, wherever they wish to study.

2. Concept of Outcomes Based Education

In the above context, fresh engineeringgraduates are assessed by potential employerson the basis of the skills and competenceneeded on the job ,rather than mere knowledgeacquired during their education. LearningOutcomes provide verifiable statements of whatlearners are expected to know, understand and/or be able to do. The learning outcomesapproach focuses on what the learner hasachieved and is able to demonstrate at the endof the learning activity rather than the intentionsof the teacher. This student-centred approachis what makes the difference between theobjective and the learning outcome of a teachingactivity . Program Objectives in traditionaleducation are expressed from the teacher’s pointof view and deal with the intended results ofteaching and learning. Learning outcomes,however, consider learning from the students’point of view and deal with the achieved /demonstrated results.

2. 1 Key Constituents

Key constituents of Outcomes BasedEducation are Program Educational Objectives(PEO), Program Outcomes (PO) and CourseOutcomes (CO). Program EducationalObjectives are broad statements that describethe career and professional accomplishmentsthat the program is preparing the graduates toachieve. Program Outcomes are statements thatdescribe what students are expected to knowand be able to do by the time of graduation.Course outcomes are what students areexpected to know and be able to do when acourse is completed. PEOs, POs and COs areto be aligned in such a way to meet therespective objectives.

2.2 Learning Outcomes

Learning outcomes are expressed in termsof “ level of competence” to be obtained by thelearner. Competencies represent a dynamiccombination of cognitive and meta-cognitiveskills, knowledge and understanding,interpersonal, intellectual and practical skills,and ethical values. A learning objective takesone of the two following forms:

1. At the end of this course, the studentshould be able to do…

2. To do well on the next test, you shouldbe able to demonstrate…

What follows either of these is a list of tasksthat demonstrate mastery of the desiredknowledge and skills. Each task statementincludes one or more key action words (suchas list, explain, calculate, estimate, derive,model, design, choose, and critique) along witha definition of the task and possibly, specificationof the conditions under which the task is to beperformed.

2.3 Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational

Objectives

When we start writing learning objectives,we will discover that different tasks call for


3

different knowledge and skill levels, with a fewtasks requiring only memorization to complete,whereas a majority of them calling for analyticalskills and creativity.

A system of classifying learning objectivesaccording to their required skill levels wasformulated by Benjamin Bloom, called Bloom’sTaxonomy of Educational Objectives. Categorieswere formulated for cognitive (thinking andproblem-solving skills), affective (attitudes, valuesystems), and psychomotor domains. Thecategories or levels for the cognitive domain(which is critical for Engineering graduates) andillustrative action words for each level are asfollows:

1. Knowledge (repeating verbatim): list, state.

2. Comprehension (demonstrating under-standing of terms and concepts): explain,interpret.

3. Application (applying learned information tosolve a problem): calculate, solve.

4. Analysis (breaking things down into theirelements, formulating theoretical explanationsor mathematical or logical models forobserved phenomena): derive; explain.

5. Synthesis (creating something, combiningelements in novel ways): formulate, make up, design.

6. Evaluation (making and justifying valuejudgments or selections from amongalternatives): determine, select, critique.

Levels 4 to 6 are known as the Higher OrderThinking Skills (HOTS), which are expected byindustry from Engineering Graduates

2.4 Assessment and Evaluation

It is necessary to judge whether and howwell the students learnt a body of knowledgeor mastered a skill, or how well a teacher taughta course, or how well a product or process hasmet its design specifications, or how well aninstructional program has met its educational

objectives. A two-step process is used to makethe judgment rationally:

� Assessment . Decide on the data/observations (that is to be used as a basisfor making the judgment) and the procedures(observations, measurements, experiments,surveys) , that will be used to collect thedata and perform the analysis needed topresent the data into a form , suitable forthe next step.

� Evaluation . Using the assessmentoutcomes and pre-established criteria, drawconclusions and make evaluativejudgments.

Fig 1 presents the Concept Map onConstructive Alignment of intended outcomes,delivery and assessment

3. Benefits of Outcomes Based Education

When a student demonstrates acquisitionof knowledge, skills and competencies , asdescribed in the Learning Outcomes, it is anindication of “quality education” . Learningoutcomes can help faculty members take amore holistic view of the students educationalexperiences. Setting Learning Objectives inadvance helps the teacher to select coursecontent and decide on how much time to allocateto each topic, create relevant assignments tomake the students practice their learnings inthe class ; and design relevant tests to assesstheir learnings. Setting such objectives is morehelpful than merely prescribing the syllabus toteachers. Learning objectives can be useful ifthey are shared with the students in the form ofstudy guides for tests and then used as thebasis of the test preparation. When studentshave a clear understanding of what is expectedof them, it may help them to prepare themselvesbetter and meet the expectations .They canalso help assess learning and teaching methodsand establish feedback mechanisms forstudents, employers and other stakeholders.


4

Learning outcomes, especially when mappedto specific educational experiences, can alsobe used by the students to do self-assessmentof their own progress. At the same time, learningoutcomes may best be used as a tool foracademic and professional mobility but not asa tool to standardise curricular content at thenational/international level .

4. Evolution of OBE in variousgeographies of the Globe

41 Accreditation Board of Engineering

and Technology , US :

One of the most important developments was

the introduction , in the United States , of theEngineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000) for theaccreditation of engineering programs by theAccreditation Board of Engineering andTechnology (ABET). In terms of EC2000,Engineering programs are to be guided by aholistic and consistent quality system , startingwith the institution’s mission, learning outcomesfor the individual engineering programs,operationalisation of key performance indicators,supported by a quality assurance system toensure that the learning outcomes are actuallymet. Besides program-specific learningoutcomes, ABET formulated eleven genericoutcomes to be achieved by every engineeringprogram at the bachelor’s level. The ABET

Fig 1 : Concept Map on Constructive Alignment of intended outcomes, deliveryand assessment

( Source: Concept Map illustrating the main ideas put forward by Biggs on ConstructiveAlignment ( Houghton , 2004)


5

approach became one of the role models for thedevelopment of similar trends in other parts ofthe world

4.2 Bologna Process, Europe:

The Bologna Declaration, signed in June1999, by European Ministers for highereducation, set in motion, events, whicheventually led to the launching of a commonFramework for Qualifications in European HigherEducation Area (EHEA) in March 2010. Theobjective of the Bologna process is to improvethe efficiency and effectiveness of highereducation throughout Europe and to promote itsmobility within the European Community (EC)by ensuring increased transparency andcomparability of programs among theInstitutions. The three overarching principles ofthe Bologna process have been: the introductionof a three-cycle system (bachelor/master/doctorate), quality assurance at all levels, andconsistency of recognition of qualifications andperiods of study. In the context of the Bolognaprocess, LOs are considered essential buildingblocks for quality of programs among theInstitutions within Europe. Till date, forty-sevencountries signed the Bologna Declaration. Oneof the projects on European Accredited Engineer( EUR-ACE) conceived five groups of LearningOutcomes as minimum requirement for entryinto Engineering profession. EUR-ACE LOs arethe basis for a European mutual recognitionagreement under the framework of EuropeanNetwork for Accreditation of EngineeringEducation (ENAEE) , which was agreed by 30European countries.

4.3 International Accords

Several international accords provide forrecognition of graduates of accredited programsof each signatory by the remaining signatories.The Washington Accord (WA) provide for mutualrecognition of programs accredited for theengineering graduates. The Sydney Accord (SA)and the Dublin Accord (DA) provides for mutualrecognition of accredited qualifications forengineering technologists and engineering

technicians. These accords are based on theprinciple of substantial equivalence rather thanexact correspondence of content and outcomes.

The Washington Accord (WA) ,signed in1989, is an independent international agreementfor:

� Mutual recognition of accredited engineeringprograms

� Benchmarking standards for engineeringeducation

� Benchmarking accreditation policies andprocesses

ABET was part of WA, which was the firstto recognize the substantial equivalency ofprograms accredited by the members andrecommends that graduates of programsaccredited by any of the signatory bodies berecognized by the other bodies, as having metthe academic requirements for entry to thepractice of engineering. As of now , it has fifteenfull signatories (Australia , Canada, Hong Kong,Ireland, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand,Russia, Singapore, South Africa ,Taiwan, Turkey,the UK and the US ) and five provisionalsignatories (Bangladesh ,Germany, India,Pakistan and Sri Lanka ) .

In 2005, the WA adopted a set of learningoutcomes, ( set up by ABET) , with which thoseof all signatories must be compatible . In 2011,WA established Graduate Attributes , whichare a set of individually assessable outcomesthat represent the generally agreed referencefor accredited programs by the membercountries . The Graduate Attributes , as listedbelow, supported by level statements, developedby the signatories give confidence that theeducational objectives of programs are being

achieved.

a. Depth of Knowledge

b. Problem analysis

c. Design & Development of Solutions


6

d. Investigation of Complex Problem

e. Modern tool usage

f. Engineer and society

g. Environment& sustainability

h. Ethics

i. Individual & team work

j. Communication

k. Lifelong learning

l. Project management & finance .

As per ABET guidelines, for accreditation ofBachelor degree programs in engineering for2013-14, the student outcomes must include,but are not limited to, eleven capabilities/abilities , as below:

a. an ability to select and apply the knowledge,techniques, skills, and modern tools of thediscipline to broadly-defined engineeringtechnology activities;

b. an ability to select and apply a knowledgeof mathematics, science, engineering, andtechnology to engineering technologyproblems that require the application ofprinciples and applied procedures ormethodologies;

c. an ability to conduct standard tests andmeasurements; to conduct, analyze, andinterpret experiments; and to applyexperimental results to improve processes;

d. an ability to design systems, components,or processes for broadly-defined engineeringtechnology problems appropriate to programeducational objectives;

e. an ability to function effectively as a memberor leader on a technical team;

f. an ability to identify, analyze, and solvebroadly-defined engineering technologyproblems;

g. an ability to apply written, oral, and graphicalcommunication in both technical and non-technical environments; and an ability toidentify and use appropriate technicalliterature;

h. an understanding of the need for and anability to engage in self-directed continuingprofessional development;

i. an understanding of and a commitment toaddress professional and ethicalresponsibilities including a respect fordiversity;

j. a knowledge of the impact of engineeringtechnology solutions in a societal and globalcontext; and

k. a commitment to quality, timeliness, andcontinuous improvement.

4.4 OECD initiative:

The OECD launched a feasibility study,Assessment of Higher Education LearningOutcomes(AHELO), which is a ground-breakinginitiative to assess learning outcomes on aninternational scale by creating measures thatwould be applicable across multiple culturesand languages of OECD countries. The AHELOfeasibility study contains four complementarystrands of work:

i) a generic skills or transferablecompetencies strand;

ii) an economics strand;

iii) an engineering strand; and

iv) a value-added measurement strand that willrecommend possible methodologies tocapture learning gained during a student’shigher education experience.

The study group compared ABET EC2000Learning Outcomes with EUR-ACE LearningOutcomes for the first cycle ( graduation) andcame to the conclusion that they arecomparable and hence decided to synthesise


7

them into one set of commonly agreed LOs,which are detailed in the next section.

A methodology has been developed , withinthe framework of the European Bologna Process,by a large group of universities and theirdepartments under the initiative , TuningEducational Structures in Europe3. In 2007,groups of high level peers validated the Tuningapproach as a methodology as well as itsimplementation in multiple disciplines. It iscurrently applied in more than 30 subject areas,in many institutions throughout Europe and LatinAmerica as well as some countries in Eurasia.At present, the Tuning methodology is beingtested in three US states. Furthermore, Tuninghas served and is serving as a platform fordeveloping reference points within subject areas.These reference points are relevant for makingstudy programs comparable, compatible andtransparent.

5.0 OBE Approach for graduation in Engineering

The main requirements for any outcomes-based qualification are a clear understanding ofthe goals and objectives of the program, andteaching strategies that are able to support thedevelopment of the required competencies,coupled with assessment procedures , capableof reliably monitoring whether the establishedtargets are being met, or not. Hence, theInstitution should ensure that the programs thatthey deliver provide a coherent assembly ofdiscipline specific and complementaryknowledge areas, along with integration ofrequired skills and values. Besides, adequateopportunities are to be provided for thedevelopment, demonstration and assessmentof required competencies, as the studentprogresses through the program. to ensureeffective preparation for the world of professionalpractice, and lifelong learning.

51 Three Stage process

Development and delivery of an outcomes-based program should ideally follow a three-

stage process:

Stage 1: Description of the Qualification:- Settingthe purpose of the qualification, and the expectedcompetencies of the graduates of the program.

Stage 2: Structuring the Curriculum:- Establishingthe content and learning activities required tosupport the achievement of the outcomesrequired.

Stage 3: Program Delivery:- Providing theteaching, learning and assessment strategies /plans of action that will facilitate the developmentand assessment of the outcomes associatedwith the qualification.

5.2 Commonly agreed Learning Outcomes

Learning Outcomes , that came out of theOECD project, are classified into five categories:General Learning outcomes, Basic EngineeringSciences, Engineering Analysis, EngineeringDesign and engineering Practice.

a. General Learning Outcomes

Graduates are expected to have achieved thefollowing general learning outcomes:

i. ability to function effectively as an individualand as a member of a team;

ii. ability to communicate effectively with theengineering community and with society atlarge;

iii. ability to recognise the need for and engagein independent life-long learning; and

iv. ability to demonstrate awareness of the widermultidisciplinary context of engineering.

b. Basic Engineering Sciences

In general, the underpinning knowledge andunderstanding of science, mathematics andengineering fundamentals are essential to satisfyother program outcomes. Graduates should beable to demonstrate their knowledge andunderstanding of their engineering specialisation,and also the wider context of engineering. Moreparticularly, graduates are expected to have


8

Fig 2 : Stages in delivery of outcome based education

( Source: Implementing outcomes based education in chemistry and chemical engineering ,Prof Ilkka Turunen et al, Work package 15, European Chemistry and Chemical EngineeringEducation Network ).


9

achieved the following learning outcomes:

i. ability to demonstrate knowledge andunderstanding of the scientific andmathematical

ii. principles underlying their branch ofengineering;

iii. ability to demonstrate a systematicunderstanding of the key aspects andconcepts of their branch of engineering; and

iv. ability to demonstrate comprehensiveknowledge of their branch of engineeringincluding emerging issues.

c. Engineering Analysis

Graduates should be able to solveengineering problems consistent with the levelof knowledge and understanding expected at theend of the program. Analysis can include theidentification, specification and clarification ofthe problem, determination of possible solutions,selection of the most appropriate solutionmethod, and effective implementation. Thegraduates should be able to use variousmethods, including mathematical analysis,computational modeling, or practicalexperiments, and should be able to recognizesocietal, health and safety, environmental andcommercial constraints. They s are expectedto have achieved the following learningoutcomes:

i. the ability to apply their knowledge andunderstanding to identify, formulate and solveengineering problems using establishedmethods;

ii. the ability to apply knowledge andunderstanding to analyse engineeringproducts, processes and methods;

iii. the ability to select and apply relevantanalytic and modeling methods;

iv. the ability to conduct literature searches,use databases and other sources ofinformation; and

v. the ability to design and conduct appropriateexperiments, interpret the data and drawconclusions.

d. Engineering Design

Graduates should be able to createengineering designs and processes , workingin co-operation with the team of engineers andnon-engineers and are expected to haveachieved the following learning outcomes:

i. the ability to apply their knowledge andunderstanding to develop designs to meetdefined and specified requirements; and

ii. the ability to demonstrate an understandingof design methodologies, and be able to usethem.

e. Engineering Practice

Graduates should be able to apply theirknowledge and understanding to developingpracticalskills for solving problems, conductinginvestigations, and designing engineeringdevices and processes.They should alsorecognise the wider, non-technical aspects, suchas ethical, environmental, commercial andindustrial, implications of engineering practice,ethical, environmental, commercial and industrialconsiderations. Graduates are expected to haveachieved the following learning outcomes:

i. the ability to select and use appropriateequipment, tools and methods;

ii. the ability to combine theory and practiceto solve engineering problems;

iii. the ability to demonstrate understanding ofapplicable techniques and methods, andtheir limitations;

iv. the ability to demonstrate understanding ofthe non-technical implications of engineeringpractice;

v. the ability to demonstrate workshop andlaboratory skills;


10

vi. the ability to demonstrate understanding ofthe health, safety and legal issues andresponsibilities of engineering practice, theimpact of engineering solutions within asocietal and environmental context, andcommitment to professional ethics,responsibilities and norms of engineeringpractice; and

vii. the ability to demonstrate knowledge ofproject management and businesspractices, such as risk and changemanagement, and awareness of theirlimitations.

5.3 Assessment Tools

A range of Assessment Tools are used toassess the Program Educational Objectives(PEO) and Program Outcomes (PO) and CourseOutcomes(CO). Employer Surveys and AlumniSurveys are normally used to arrive atachievements of Program EducationalObjectives. Program Objectives can beassessed through End-of-course surveys ,Instructor evaluation reports , Departmentperformance report , student exit surveys, Alumnisurvey and Student Advisory Committee surveys. Course Objectives can be assessed by wayof assignments , mid course as well as end ofthe course surveys/feedback from the students, faculty surveys etc. In order to assessperformance of students in practicalassignments and projects, more particularly ingroup assignments, Rubrics can be used.Rubrics is a set of performance indicators todefine the important components of the workbeing completed.

Considering that Grades have been thetraditional way of assessment of students’learning, a number of studies were conducted (Per O Aamodt et al ,2008) to establish correlationbetween grades and achievement of LearningOutcomes. Students with the excellent gradesalso reported higher Learning outcomes (withthe exception of cultural / societal knowledge),but correlation was weaker than expected.Hence grades and Learning outcomes could be

considered to be complementary tools ofassessment .While grades primarily measuresubject specific knowledge , Learning Outcomesmeasure transferable skills.

5.4 Some innovative approaches to

implement Teaching-Learning-

Assessment in Outcome Based

Education

i. Creating and nurturing an educationinnovation culture is crucial to improve theeducational experience as well as achievethe desired learning outcomes .

ii. Institutions should create a supportiveenvironment for education innovation andmay strengthen faculty developmentprograms on Outcome Based Educationand the tools for its effective implementation.

iii. Definition of measurable learning outcomesfor engineering programs and relevantassessment tools is critical to thesystematic improvement of the educationalexperience for engineering students.

iv. Learning outcomes may be mappedthroughout students’ curriculum/educationalexperiences to determine where and wheneach learning outcome should be met. It isthen possible to use both formative andsummative evaluations to determine how wellthe desired learning outcomes are being metas well as determine the positive or negativeimpact of any educational innovation.

v. Institutions can leverage partnerships withindustry to provide inputs to improvecurriculum/education experience design.These industrial partners can also be usefulvaluable teaching sources and also can helpto assess learning outcomes

vi. Besides the standard lecture mode, thestudents may also be provided with variousprofessionally relevant experiential learningopportunities including internationalexperiences, co-op and intern (sandwichprograms) opportunities, multidisciplinary


11

design experiences, and participation inlearning communities.

vii. Design-Based Learning (DBL) is aninteresting collaborative approach tosuccessfully learn, teach and assess keylearning outcomes in engineering, aimedat learning to design in engineering.

viii. In addition to the standard, summativeteacher-course evaluations, face-to-faceinteractions between students and “trusted”counselors can be used to obtain moredetailed information regarding the “success”of the education experiences. Alumni andemployer surveys are also a useful sourceof information.

ix. Just as the assessment tools are used toevaluate learning outcomes, it is equallyimportant to develop a process by which theevaluation data is analysed to identifyactions leading to improvements. Withoutsuch a process, the evaluations will losemuch of their value and students and otherswill not take them seriously.

6.5 Support Mechanisms to implement

OBE

In order to facilitate implementation of OBEacross the various stages, institutions need toset up an administrative support mechanism. AQuality assurance /OBE cell may be set up toco-ordinate various activities / initiatives with therelevant stake holders,like students, teachers,alumni, industry etc. While the Program Co-ordinator takes the responsibility to set PEO’sand POs, design processes for delivery andassessment so that the outcomes are achieved,respective Course

co-ordinators have to play the same role inrespect of the specific courses. An advisorybody, consisting of senior academicians,industry professionals and alumni can reviewthe progress and recommend corrective actions.

7.0 Outcomes Based EngineeringEducation - Imperative for India

As per various surveys, on an average, hardly25% of the Engineering graduates produced inIndia are employable. As per a survey ofemployment of Technical Graduates in IT/ITESindustries ( Aspiring Minds,2010), employabilityin Technical support and IT services is only25.9% and 17.8% respectively. As we move tomore technical skill intensive roles like KPOand product design, it drops down to as low as9.5% and 4.2%. Likewise, the figure goes downas we move to tier-2 colleges. Industry finds thatit is 3 times more difficult ( in terms of effortsand cost) to identify an employable graduatefrom tier-2 campus, compared with a tier-1campus, with the result, most of the companiesstopped recruitment from tier-2 colleges. Eventhe students that are selected by the ITcompanies have to be trained by the companiesfor periods ranging from 6 to 9 months, beforebeing deployed on the jobs. Companies fromother industries also face similar challenges withregard to recruitment and training of freshEngineering graduates.

With the second largest pool of engineeringtalent in the world, coupled with potential globalopportunities to tap , there is dire need for Indiato fall in line with the rest of the world to adoptOutcomes based engineering education so thatmobility of qualification is ensured. Indiancompanies can thus leverage the Indian talentin the global market.

Indian students constitute the second largestin the world to pursue higher studies in the US,with most of them opting for Engineering.Mobility of Indian engineering degrees will helpthem by way of avoidance to take extra coursesand save time and efforts.

7.1 World Bank survey on employability

of fresh engineering graduates

During Sep - Nov 2009, an EmployerSatisfaction Survey was carried out by the World


12

Bank and FICCI, as part of preparation of theSecond Phase of Technical Education QualityImprovement Program (TEQIP-II) initiated by theGovernment of India and financially supportedby the World Bank. 157 employers acrosssectors and regions in India participated in thesurvey . The results confirm a widespreaddissatisfaction among the employers with thecurrent graduates wherein only 36% of theemployers were satisfied with the quality of thenew hires.

As per the report, the skills set of engineersrequired by the employers can be characterizedby three overall skills factors:

i. Core Employability Skills (which covergeneric attitudinal and affective skills, suchas reliability and team-work);

ii. Communication Skills (such as Englishskills, written and verbal communication),and

iii. Professional Skills (cover cognitive skillsrelated to the engineering professions, suchas ability to apply engineering knowledge;as well as design ,conduct experiments,analyse related data and interpret theresults).

The employers felt that the graduates arerelatively strong in lower-order thinking skills(knowledge and understanding), but fall short,when it comes to the more complex tasks suchas application of appropriate tools to solve aproblem, and analysis and interpretation.Further, these Higher-Order Thinking Skills(HOTS) are the most important ProfessionalSkills for the graduates to be more successful.The report raised a fundamental question -whether the Indian engineering educationsystem overly trains students to memorizescience and engineering knowledge, withoutadequately emphasizing the applicability,analysis and out-of-the-box thinking thatemployers look for.

Following recommendations were made toimprove higher-order thinking skills by reformingthe education system:

(i) Institutions to focus on learning rather thanmemorization and mere understanding .They should change assessment methods,especially the examination system, toassess higher-order thinking skills and notmeasure memorized knowledge. In order toenable it, curricula should be designed in away where students should learn how toabstract out practical issues;

(ii) reform curricula to increase the share oftasks where the student or a team ofstudents lead their own problemidentification, experimenting, and solving,using engineering knowledge andmethodologies;

(iii) promote teaching-learning sessions, wherestudents actively learn and develop their ownanalytical and evaluation skills as comparedto simply listing and taking notes.

7.3 UGC mandatory accreditation Bill

2012

As per the Mandatory assessment andAccreditation of higher educational InstitutionsRegulation, 2012 all specified HigherEducational Institutions have to undergomandatory accreditation by the Accreditationagency after passing out of two batches or sixyears ,whichever is earlier. One of the majorobjectives for this is to “ facilitate studentsachieve learning outcomes appropriate to theircourse and relevant to their context, as shall bedeclared by the Higher Educational Institutions”.While the objective of mandatory accreditationis laudable , the task of setting up the LearningOutcomes was left to the HEIs, thereby negatinga common minimum framework for the country

, as a whole..

7.4 Washington Accord and India

India , represented by the National Board of


13

Accreditation (NBA) , was accepted as aprovisional member of the Washington Accordin the year 2007 and continues to be so, tilldate. Though India is eligible to become a fullsignatory since 2009 , it could not become one,due to delays in implementation of OutcomesBased Education in Engineering Institutions.NBA has included the WA criteria as part of itsaccreditation process in November 2012 and hasbeen conducting awareness seminars / trainingsessions across the country and expects tobecome full member shortly.

8.0 Conclusion

There is a dire need to adopt OutcomeBased Education in Indian EngineeringInstitutions, with a sense of urgency. Governmentand NBA have to create more awareness amongall the stake holders and train teachers andother support staff on implementation of OBEacross all stages of academics (from settingLearning Outcomes, delivery to assessment).There is also an imperative for changing themindset of teachers, parents and students away fromgrades so that Learning Outcomes are accordeddue weight age in the assessment systems .Successful implementation of Outcomes basedengineering Education is possible only with theconcerted efforts of all the stake holders -students, teachers, employers and thegovernment - as every one of them stands togain out of it.

Bibliography

1. ABET, Oct 27,2012, Criteria for AccreditingEngineering Technologh Programs,Effective for Reviews During the 2013-2014Accreditation Cycle, www.abet.org,accessed on Oct 19,2013.

2. Andreas Blom and Hiroshi Saeki, April 2011,“Employability and skill set of newlygraduated engineers in India”, PolicyResearch working Paper 5640, The WorldBank, South Asia Region.

3. “National employability study”, 2010, ��

Aspiring Minds

4. Denny C davis et al ,2004, “MeasuringLearning outcomes for Engineering DesignEducation “,Proceedings of the 2004American Society for Engineering EducationAnnual Conference.

5. Ilkka Tureunen and bill Byers, 2009“,Implementing outcomes-based Educationin Chemistry and Chemical Engineering”,European chemistry and chemicalEngineering Education Network

6. http://www.nbaind.org , “Outcome basededucation and accreditation”

7. OECD , 2011, “A Tuning-AHELO ConceptualFramework of Expected Desired/LearningOutcomes in Engineering”, OECD EducationWorking Papers, No. 60, OECD Publishing

8. Per O Aamodt and ElisabethHovdhaugen,2008,“ assessing HigherEducation Learning outcomes as a resultof Institutional and individualCharacteristics“, IMHE Program onInstitutional Management in HigherEducation

9. Richard M Felder and Rebecca Brunt, 2004,“the ABC’s of Engineering Education,ABET, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Co-operativeLearning and so on”, Proceedings of the2004 American Society for EngineeringEducation Annual Conference

10. h t tp : / /www.wash ingtonaccord .org /GradProfiles.cfm, accessed on Oct 21,2013

11. h t tp : / /www.wash ingtonaccord .org /W a s h i n g t o n - A c c o r d / W a s h i n g t o n -Accord-Overview.pdf , accessed on Oct 21,2013

12. “Mandatory assessment and Accreditationof higher educational Institutions Regulation,2012”, The Gazette of India, Jan 19-Jan 25,2013 (PP 115 to 120).

Documents

"Outcomes based Engineering Education" by Prof ORS Rao