Criterion 5: Faculty Information and Contributions - NBA for UG Engineering


Criterion 5: Faculty Information and Contributions (200)

5.1. Student-Faculty Ratio (SFR)

Marks to be given proportionally from a maximum of 20 to a minimum of 10 for average SFR between 15:1 to 25:1, and zero for average SFR higher than 25:1. Marks distribution is given as below:
< = 15  - 20 Marks
< = 17  - 18 Marks
< = 19  - 16 Marks
< = 21  - 14 Marks
< = 23  - 12 Marks
< = 25  - 10 Marks
>  25  - 0 Marks

SFR is to be verified considering the faculty of the entire department.
No. of Regular faculty calculation considering Regular faculty definition*; Faculty appointment letters, time table, subject allocation file, salary
statements.
No. of students calculation as mentioned in the SAR(please refer table under criterion 5.1)
Faculty Qualification as per AICTE guidelines shall only be counted

5.2. Faculty Cadre Proportion

Cadre Proportion Marks =
 




If AF1 = AF2= 0 then zero marks
Maximum marks to be limited if it exceeds 20 (Refer calculation in SAR)

5.3. Faculty Qualification

FQ = 2.0 x [{10X +4Y}/F] where
X is no. of faculty with Ph.D., Y is no. of faculty with M.Tech., F is no. of faculty required to
comply 1:20 Faculty Student ratio
(no. of faculty and no. of students required to be calculated as per 5.1)

5.4 Faculty Retention

·         ³ 90% of required Faculties retained during the period of assessment keeping CAYm2 as base year (10)
·         ³ 75% of required Faculties retained during the period of assessment keeping CAYm2 as base year (08)
·         ³ 60% of required Faculties retained during the period of assessment keeping CAYm2 as base year (06)

·         ³ 50% of required Faculties retained during the period of assessment keeping CAYm2 as base year (04)
·         Otherwise (0)

(Faculty date of joining; at least three-month (July-April-May) salary statement for each of the assessment years)

5.5. Faculty competencies in correlation to Program Specific Criteria.

A. Specialization
B. Research Publications
C. Course Developments
D. Other relevant points

5.6. Innovations by the Faculty in Teaching and Learning.

A. Statement of clear goals, use of appropriate methods, significance of results, effective
presentation (4)
B. Availability of work on the Institute Website (2)
C. Availability of work for peer review and critique (2)
D. Reproducibility and Reusability by other scholars for further development (2)

(A. Availability on Institute website; awareness among faculty and students of the department
B. & C. Self-explanatory
D. Innovations that contribute to the improvement of student learning, typically include use of ICT, instruction delivery, instructional methods, assessment, evaluation etc.)

5.7 Faculty as participants in Faculty development /training activities /STTPs

For each year: Assessment = 3×Sum/0.5RF
Average assessment over last three years starting from CAYm1 (Marks limited to 15)

5.8. Research and Development

5.8.1. Academic Research

A. Number of quality publications in refereed/SCI Journals, citations, Books/Book Chapters
etc. (15)
B. PhD awarded during the assessment period while working in the institute (5)

(A. Quality of publications; publications copy, B. Documentary evidence)

5.8.2 Sponsored Research

Funded research from outside; Cumulative during CAYm1, CAYm2 and CAYm3
Amount > 50 Lakh – 20 Marks,
Amount >40 and < 50  Lakh – 15 Marks,
Amount >30 and < 40  Lakh – 10 Marks,
Amount >15 and < 30  Lakh – 5 Marks,
Amount< 15 Lakh – 0 Marks

(Documentary evidence; Funding agency, Amount, Duration, Research progress; Outcome)

5.8.3 Development Activities.

A. Product Development
B. Research laboratories
C. Instructional materials
D. Working models/charts/monograms etc.

5.8.4. Consultancy (From Industry)

Consultancy; Cumulative during CAYm1, CAYm2 and CAYm3
Amount >10 Lakh – 20 Marks,
Amount <10 and > 8 Lakh – 15 Marks,
Amount < 8 and > 6 Lakh – 10 Marks,
Amount < 6 and > 4 Lakh – 5 Marks,
Amount < 4  and > 2 Lakh            2 Marks,
Amount < 2 Lakh – 0 Mark

(Documentary evidence; Funding agency, Amount, Duration, Research progress; Outcome)

5.9. Faculty Performance Appraisal and Development System (FPADS)

A. A well-defined performance appraisal and development system instituted for all the assessment years (5)
B. Its implementation and effectiveness (5)

(A. Notified performance appraisal and development system; Appraisal Parameters; Awareness
B. Implementation, Transparency and Effectiveness)

5.10. Visiting/Adjunct/Emeritus Faculty etc.

Provision of Visiting /Adjunct/Emeritus faculty etc. (1)
Minimum 50 hours per year interaction (per year to obtain three marks: 3 x 3 = 9)

Post a Comment

0 Comments