the employability of graduates that further ensures that they not only are suitable for jobs but can also achieve sustainable growth in the job place. OBE can therefore be considered as an important tool for measuring the abilities of sustainability in students in the universities or any academic study place (McKeown 2006; Nations 2015; Swaminathan and Kesavan 2016; UNESCO 2016; Rieckmann et al. 2017; van't Land and Herzog 2017; UN and Australian Government 2018; Franco et al. 2019; Kioupi and Voulvoulis 2019; UNESCO 2019).
3.1.2 Sustainable Growth in Higher Education
According to SDG 4 of the SDGs (McKeown 2006; García Reyes 2013; Wright 2014; Nations 2015; UNESCO 2016; van't Land and Herzog 2017; TWI2050 – The World in 2050 2018; UN and Australian Government 2018; Marshall and Oxfam Education 2019; UNESCO 2019), sustainability in education is mainly controlled by curriculum (Franco et al. 2019), teaching methods (Coughlan 2011; García Reyes 2013; Marshall and Oxfam Education 2019), extracurricular activities, and learning assessment rubrics. To attain measurable outcomes in the students, we need to work on each of these categories very carefully. Despite a lot of challenges in achieving SDG 4, UNESCO (McKeown 2006; UNESCO 2016; Rieckmann et al. 2017; UNESCO 2019) has suggested wonderful guidelines and recommendations as to how the outcomes can be truly achieved and sustainability can be practiced. Students also need to be made aware of societal responsibilities (Coughlan 2011; TWI2050 – The World in 2050 2018; Kioupi and Voulvoulis 2019; UNESCO 2019) and responsibilities toward nature and climate change (UNESCO 2019). The following are recommended as major requirements for achieving sustainability in higher education:
Formulating the achievable, measurable and pragmatic goals.
Setting the objectives for learning keeping in mind about SDG 4.
Involving all the stakeholders while writings POs and PEOs, not just getting online. feedback but also having interactions at regular intervals.
Providing a holistic ambience of problem‐based, research‐based, and project‐based learning.
Motivating learners about the practical significance of OBE and SLO.s
Outreaching to institutes of eminence which are actually practicing OBE in a true sense.
Mapping the POs/SLOs with PEOs using suitable rubrics or mechanisms.
Participating significantly on the part of policy‐makers, revisiting the educational policies and modifying them as and when needed.
3.2 Pragmatic Mapping of Student Learning Outcomes and Learning Objectives
As we have discussed throughout Section 3.1, SLOs play a very significant role in the future prospects of the students and graduates. There are practices in SLOs and in their attainment that can be seen in the accreditation documents of most universities where the record of mapping between the student learning objectives and their learning outcomes is highlighted with the help of several examples from various programs and departments. However, the important thing in all the practices that are reported is the actual impact of mapping and the pragmatic approaches used in developing SLOs in the students. The activities that directly or indirectly impact the SLOs of the students are broadly:
1 Curricular: This includes academic activities mainly related to various components of the courses offered in the program, such as tests, assignments, examinations, and other direct assessment.
2 Co‐curricular: The activities which are associated with various courses as supportive components such as seminars, group discussions, project based events etc.
3 Extracurricular: This is completely beyond curriculum and plays very important role in developing a set of skills in students, namely sports, various competitions etc. Case studies and survey on certain relevant topics also enable the students for developing unique qualities through these extra‐curricular activities.
These activities are not uncommon and can be seen being practiced everywhere, but the ways in which they are carried out or performed actually determine the SLOs in the students. For the approaches that can be truly assessed through direct or indirect feedback or mechanisms it can be claimed that the outcome in the students through such activities has been truly inculcated. So, mapping that reflects the change in students is of great importance whether this has been part of assessment of the activities, academic, research, co‐curricular, etc. Let us look at some pragmatic approaches that were used while assessing the SLO in the students, with the help of the delivery and assessment of two courses – Signals and Systems (ECE 3X20) and Image Processing (CSE 5X08). These two courses are among the many that were delivered by Sinha (one of the authors of this paper), and they are briefly discussed here to show a few of the pragmatics and unique methods of evaluating SLOs.
3.2.1 Specific Outcomes in ECE 3X20
A course, on Signals and Systems (ECE 3X20) was delivered to second year Engineering students in a BE (Hons) program that was offered to two streams Electronics and Communication Engineering () Students and Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) students. The number of students who registered for this course was 120 and the course was common for both CSE and ECE students. The assessment included the following main components:
1 Tests (Test‐1, Test‐2, Test‐3, mid‐term and comprehensive examinations [CEs]): The number of tests was kept to three in the subject being discussed here. However, that number can be changed, depending on the course being assesses. The mid‐term examination is conducted in the middle of the semester and the comprehensive one is done at the end of the semester.
2 Group assignment (different approach).
3 Question‐answering and a response during the lectures.
In normal tests, listed in (1) above, the practices were not very uncommon. Of course, the questions were set in such a manner to cater for all the objectives stated in the subject's course plan. The response was evaluated in each of the answer book how the answer could fulfill a particular objective which further means what outcome was attained by the student. Table 3.1 shows a brief outline of the attributes which were seriously observed. This exercise was extensive and done for all the students.
Table 3.1 Assessment and mapping of questions and their responses of tests.
| Question number | Objectives | Outcomes | Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Student Learning Objective (SL)‐SL1 | SLO1 | Excellent attainment (EA) |
| SL2 | Average attainment (AA) | ||
| SL3 | SLO2 | AA | |
| 2 | SL2 | SLO1 | EA |
| SL3 | |||
| 3 | SL1 | SLO1 | AA |
| SL3 |
The attainment was seen and evaluated on the basis of the quality of responses and thought process involved while answering the questions by the students. In addition, we also tried to see