Page 49 - EVALUATION ENGLISH

Recommendations

Program Education Objectives, Programme Learning Outcomes and Course Learning
Outcomes may be worked out at the university / institute level for each programme as
mentioned under 2.5 at Annexure-2.
1.2 Separate suitable models for UG, PG, M.Phil./Ph.D. may be developed by the HEIs
in the light of this Report. While need for more emphasis on Internal and Continuous
Evaluation is emphasized, taking into consideration the ground realities, the HEIs
can begin with the proportion of I.E. to E.E. 30:70 and reach 50:50 in a time bound
manner, without compromising the quality and standard. In exceptionally high ranking
HEIs, the ratio can be 60:40. Some flexibility may be considered, especially as the
ground realities are much different at the University level and at affiliated colleges in
urban areas, semi-urban and rural areas. The situation can be monitored and reviewed
periodically for better implementation.
1.3 To achieve the evaluation objectives, the HEIs must make use of available technology
and automation in various pre-, on- and post-examination stages. Technical support
for the same by the UGC / university may be required.
1.4 Proper question paper setting as well as Learning Outcome Based Education are the
most important part of the Examination System and is key to quality of evaluation.
Guidelines, necessary for the proper paper setting as well as Learning Outcome Based
Education may be discussed in Orientation and Refresher Courses for the teachers.
2. Question Paper Setting:

2.1 Question paper setting needs drastic reforms. While setting the QP, questions from
the QB, and independently by the paper setter(s), in the pre-decided proportion (say
70:30), can be drawn with due consideration to the category of questions.
2.2 The composition of a QP should be such that an average student should not find it
hard to get passing grade while it should post real challenge to a good students with
high scoring becoming increasingly difficult.
2.3 Properly and correctly worded, balanced, well-set question paper with unambiguous
questions, is the key to quality and is the most important part of the examination
system. Necessary guidelines to the paper setters should be provided. Workshops to
sensitize the teachers and create awareness may be arranged.
2.4 Periodic academic audit of the QPs (as also of assessed answer books) should be
conducted with an objective of quality monitoring by the respective State Council of
Higher Education of concerned State.
3. Grading and Credit Transfer
3.1 Ensure a minimum program-wise uniformity in all HEIs w.r.t. number of Course
Credits (for Core, Elective etc. courses) and Total Credits at UG & PG levels to
facilitate smooth credits transfers (Refer to latest UGC guidelines for UG:
http://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/8023719 Guidelines-for-CBCS.pdf). For computation of
Grade, Grade Points, SGPA, CGPA etc, the same guidelines to be followed.
3.2 Some uniformity in the broad topics in courses at first, second and third year in each
major degree programs in all HEIs (with some flexibility, say 20-30%, to HEIs) can ensure
smooth credit transfers, and hence horizontal mobility, for the students between HEIs.
The optional subjects which normally have nominal credits may be considered for transfer
of credit, through those optional subjects are not offered by the receiving university.
3.3 Similar guidelines by UGC for PG required.
3.4 While Absolute Grading is followed in most of the HEIs in which grading is used,
Relative Grading system will be fairer to the students and may be followed in unitary

Evaluation Reforms in Higher Educational Institutions 47