Workshop on Understanding NAAC- Qualitative Metrics-[QlM]

IQAC of DSBA organized a workshop on ‘Understanding NAAC- Qualitative Metrics [Q_lM]’on 20^th and 23^rd September 2019 from 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm .The workshop was conducted by the Dean, Dr Veena K N. The Principal, Dr [Brig] Sandes and the HOD, Prof Nikitha Sreekantha were also present.

The NAAC- Self - Study Report [SSR] has a total of 121 Metrics (Q_lM + Q_nM) for affiliated colleges covering seven Criteria. The seven criteria represent the core functions and activities of a Higher Education Institutions [HEI]. Under each Criterion a few Key Indicators are identified and these Key Indicators (KIs) are Metrics which elicit responses from the HEIs.

However, in the workshop only ‘Qualitative Metrics’ -those metrics requiring descriptive responses (Q_lM) was discussed.

The faculty was intimated about the workshop well in advance by the Dean and they had to come prepared to the workshop with those metrics requiring descriptive responses (Q_lM) corresponding to the criteria each of them has been assigned with!

• Criteria 1:Curricular Aspects ;Prof Meera Krishnan, Prof Shrithi and Prof Hari Krishna-
• Criteria 2: Teaching-Learning and Evaluation; Prof Meera Seshanna,Prof Usha , Prof Keerthishree and Prof Shaziya
• Criteria 3: Research, Innovations and Extension; Prof Crissy Mathew, Prof Kasthuri Gopal, Prof Rajani and Prof Nagaraju
• Criteria 4: Infrastructure and Learning Resources;Prof Solomon, Prof Vasudeva Rao, Prof Punya and Prof Shilpa
• Criteria 5: Student Support and Progression; Prof Nikitha, Prof Roopashree, Prof Srilalitha
• Criteria 6: Governance, Leadership and Management;Prof Nazeer Pasha, Dr Damodar
• Criteria 7: Institutional Values and Best Practices; Prof Lakshmikantha, Prof Yeshaswini and Prof Prakasha

During the workshop-more like brainstorming session-each team presented their Q_lM responses of the criteria they represented. Dr Veena and the other criteria-team members were all ears to the responses. The seven criteria team representatives presented their responses one by one; and based on the responses given, the Dean and the faculty provided their inputs. This discussion opened up possibilities for better ideas to the given responses as it drew on the wider experience of other group members present.

The brainstorming session ended in a positive rewarding environment!