Draft Minutes of the I Meeting on Academic Audit
Date: 17th Feb 2012 at 12:00 noon
Venue: Meeting Hall, Director’s Office, COE, Pune
Participating Members: QA Experts from TEQIP-II institutes
Following Member were present:
1. Prof. P.S. Revankar ( Chairman)
2. Dr. B.B. Ahuja, Dy. Director ,COEP
3. Prof. M.G. Bhat, Director, Engg. SCOE, Pune
4. Dr. Anand Bhalerao, Principal, BVUCOE, Pune
5. Prof. M.T. Telsang, RIT, Sakhrale
6. Dr. V.G. Sargade, BATU, Lonere
7. Dr. S.S. Mohite, GCOE, Karad
8. Dr. S.S. Ohol ,COE, Pune
9. Dr. S.S. Bhagwat, ICT, Mumbai
10. Dr. Deven Thakur, BVUCOE, Pune
11. Dr. Murnal Pranesh, GCOE, Aurangabad
12. Dr. Amol Deshmukh, GHRCOE, Nagpur
13. Prof. A.R Kambekar, SPCOE Mumbai
14. Prof. M.M. Akole, GCOE, Chandrapur
15. Dr. S.N. Khante , GCOE, Amaravati
16. Prof. S.O. Dahad, GCOE, Jalgaon
17. Dr. S.S. Bhamare, (Member Secretary)
18. Prof. G.V. Parishwad, COE, Pune
19. Prof. D.B. Talange, COE, Pune
20. Prof. M.S. Sutaone, COE, Pune
Following Members have communicated their leave for absence:
1. Dr. B.S. Gawali, WCE, Sangli
2. U.V. Kulkarni, SGGSIET, Nanded
3. Dr. Topkar, VJTI, Mumbai
4. Dr. Preeti Bajaj, GHRCOE, Nagpur
At the outset Chairman on behalf on DTE & SPFU Welcomed distinguished
experts of Academic Audit & QA to the first meeting of the committee. On behalf of
organizer Dy. Director of COEP, Dr. B.B. Ahuja gave opening remarks.
He spoke on impact of autonomy & TEQIP phase -I project to bring changes in
the campus, more prominently on the academic front & especially for the students. He
said that students are given freedom to express to anyone on what they feel about & this
was one of the most important aspects of last project.
There were few aspects which students may not be aware of, such as adjusting
their academic calendar with IITB, live telecast of lectures of IITB, sending faculty
members to IITB for duration of one semester. With this, COEP is seeing the focus being
shifted from publications to patents, sponsored research projects with industry &
networking, with faculty of other institution. All this happened due is strong focus on
academics; students were encouraged to interact with faculty members & experts from
other institutes & industry.
Along with these changes, the institute has developed a internal monitoring
process and one major change has occurred in terms of attitude of faculty members.
Furthe, hee said that 25% of curriculum is changed in every revision & at present 3rd
revision is in progress which is at par with any global standard. From begining of last
project, the institute is arrived at 89 faculty members with PhD. as compared to 11 at the
start, No of publication has crossed 770 & a faculty member who files for patent gets Rs.
50,000/- as an incentive. The students are also well supported for presenting papers.
Communication between faculty & students is improved. In short, it was all about
team work, targets & change in mindset.
These opening remarks could set the right tone amongst QA experts with a
proper perspective of planning.
Item No. 1: Introduction of Members and their views on academic auditing process
and its effectivenes.
1. Dr. Sargade, BATU, Lonare:
He has explained the academic audit process which has been recently
started, which contains goals, objectives, research projects & review of NPTEL
course including feedback from alumni, employers, PhD guides on publications &
2. Prof. Telsang, RIT, Sakhrale:
RIT, Sakhrale had developed academic audit system and now it has been
patternised. Select Senior Faculty members conduct discussions with focus group of
students on learning process, 5-6 training sessions for around 10-12 senior Faculty
members on ‘Audit Process’ are carried out as a part of audit system design. Fifth
audit is in progress. It starts one month after the semester begins. The Focus group of
students is heterogeneous in nature having around 10 members. Initially, after 1st
audit the results were unbelievable and they were difficult to digest for the faculty as
individual scores were around 5 to 5.5 in the scale of 10.
But now the process has become mature to capture dynamics of the
academic auditing. The teachers were made aware that the scores of auditing is not a
rating of the teacher. The process has five dimensions to it capturing the abstracts in
learning process of the students.
3. Prof. Amol Deshmukh, GHROE, Nagpur:
The College is targeting development of curriculum as per the national
standards as recommended by National Knowledge Commission. As external
auditors, NIT, Nagpur faculty is invited. Relative grading system is designed.
4. Prof. Kambekar, SPCOE, Mumbai:
This is a second year of autonomy for the college. Syllabus revision as
per requirement of industry is under progress. Audit formats for depts. And faculty is
5. Prof. Akole , GCOE, Chandrapur:
Academic Audit process development is in progress
6. Dr. Talange, COE, Pune:
Has informed that internal and external academic audits are being
conducted at COEP which are rigorous for both faculty & staff.
7. Prof. Deven Thakur, BVCOE,Pune:
Has informed about comprehensive academic record book developed by
the college through which faculty understands how a student performs. Six week of in
plant training is included. Reports are assessed. Response is very encouraging from
industry & students. Project quality has improved thereafter.
Regular computerized feedback mechanism is developed which is confidential.
8. Prof. Dahad: Govt. College of Engineering, Jalgaon has prepared academic audit
formats which are individual dept specific & as recommended by National
Knowledge commission. It shall address requirements of all stakeholders of the
institute. It has 5 sections with 1000 point evaluation scheme with evaluation of
system, students, faculty & curriculum. It is being proposed that there shall be manual
for filling the forms as well as for carrying out audits.
9. Prof. Bhalerao, BVCOE, Pune :
Academic audit at BVCOE is well planned. It is about student
performance, evaluation & learning. Typically in any organization, infrastructure
component is 10% , Natural component is 25% and human resources component is
65% , the same is applicable to the institution., Faculty members shall be made focal
10. Prof. G.V. Parishwad ,COEP:
It was informed that while preparing norms to evaluate each stakeholder
of COEP, TCS help was taken, discussions amongst faculty was held & then a format
was prepared. Idea was to make the system vibrant and responsive. Each dept. of the
institutes is autonomous and can have ideology of its own. Effect of dept. evaluation
is to later on evaluate the institute & compare the scores of last progressive year for
11. Prof. M.G. Bhat, SCOE, Pune:
There are special efforts to develop communication skills of faculty
members at Sinhgad groups own school of communication. The institutes also
focuses on teaching beyond syllabus, project based learning and special courses for
weak students. Faculty retention of SCOE is excellent.
12. Prof. Murnal Pranesh,GCOE, Aurangabad:
The institute concentrates on teaching learning process. Dr. Pranesh was
of the opinion that curriculum has to be dynamic, capturing needs of industry &
After dynamic curriculum development, faculty development should be
focused & lastly we should analyse on the outcomes of satisfaction index of students.
Whether, what they're getting they are happy with.
The first audit should be for curriculum. He is requested to submitted
detailed document/ write-up in this regard.
13. Prof. S.S.Mohite, GCOE,Karad:
He said, he shall be taking away certain good things from this meeting.
Self evolving system with proper regour should be developed. At some colleges, lack
of motivation amongst faculty is a serious problem.
14. Prof. Bhagwat,ITC, Mumbai:
There is a plan of 360° audit. Which has students feedback, what teachers
feel on the outcomes of teaching activity & lastly the feedback from industry?
15. Prof. S.N. Khante, GCOE, Amravati:
External & Internal academic auditing is done at the institute. First format
was usually a statistics of auditing and is now dropped. Second format is discussed in
APEC & senate with the action plan to overcome the lacuna. It was suggested that the
formats should be flexible as student's needs, local & university specific needs are
16. Prof. B.N. Choudhari,COEP:
Looking at large diversity of TEQIP institutes, we shall normalize the
auditing process. It shall involve two parts. First, a fixed part, consisting institute's
independent data. Second, variable part which shall be aligned with institutes
objectives. In fixed parameters, for example, the data on whether all lectures are
conducted shall be covered. National norms on curriculums standards shall be
adhered to. In the second part, institute objectives which are measurable shall be
captured. Student satisfaction index & institutes index shall be calculated.
17. Prof. M.S. Sutaone, COEP:
There shall be different academic auditing processes for 1.1 &1.2
institutes as their philosophy is different and the expected outcomes are different
18. Prof. A.M. Sapkal, COEP:
The concept of co- teaching with the help of industry experts was
introduced in COEP which has improved the quality of learning & projects. Further in
his opinion top 3% and bottom 3% students shall be targeted for student feedback.
19. Dr. S.S. Ohol, COEP:
Services to community as per the requirement of World Bank guideline
shall be explored. On this chairman, gave his opinion that skill development can be
one area for showing results under this category of activities.
Further Prof. Ohol, suggested that interaction amongst the project
institutes for sharing best practices is required which was agreed upon.
Item No.2: Presentation on Quality Assurance and Role of Academic
The chairman of the committee gave a presentation on Quality Assurance
and Role of Academic Auditing in QA. The presentation was based on NAAC
published document, "Quality Assurance in Higher Education: An Introduction."
It was decided that, close to 100% pass out rate and at lest a job in hand
for every pass out before he leaves the institute shall be the target QA criteria.
It was also decided that required curricular & Assessment criteria reforms
shall help to achieve this QA norm under autonomy.
Item No.3: Discussion on how to capture effectiveness of Teaching
learning process in Academic Auditing
1. Dr. Pranesh, GCOE, Aurangabad:
Had suggested that the feedback of students should also be taken after he
graduates from the institutes. U.G & P.G programme should be designed with proper
credit system with credit to be given to field work, research & even extracurricular
2. Dr. Ahuja:
Suggested that we need to explore on whether the syllabus shall be fully
industry relevant. If yes how much it shall be industry oriented? The answer of this
question is, it shall be industry oriented to the extent that satisfies requirements of
local industry. But it shall have more emphasis on the fundamentals.
3. Prof. B.N. Chaudhari:
In his remarks complimented the idea of capturing effectiveness in
teaching learning through auditing process. He said that mandatory courses, liberal
learning courses shall be included.
5. Prof. Ahuja:
Said that if the students do not perform well during first year, the no of
credits can be reduced for that part.
Item No.4: Finalizations of Date & Venue for next Meeting
The date and venue for the next meeting will conveyed to honorable
members with mutual convenience & consent. It shall be held in 3rd week of March
2012. It may be proposed that it shall be a workshop of one or two days duration.
Meeting concluded after thanking the chair & the members present. Lunch
was followed after the meeting.
(M.G.Bhat) (S.S.Bhamare) (P.S.Revankar)
(Dr. V.G.Sargade) (M.T.Telang) (A.Y.Deshmukh)
(A.R.Kambekar) (M.M.Akole) (M.S.Sutaone)
(S.S.Ohol) (P.B.Murnal) (A.R.Bhlerao)
(D.M.Thakore) (S.N.Khante) (S.S.Bhagwat)
A Few Photographs of the meeting are given below: