iit learning concept

8/7/2019 iit learning concept

1/72

! " # $ ! ! % & ! ! %

Draft (with Appendices)

18 June 2002

Dean, Undergraduate Studies

[email protected]

Undergraduate Curriculum Review Committee

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI

Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110 016

www.iitd.ernet.in


2/72

CONTENTS

Page No.

1 Background'

2 Goals of IITD Education(

3 Major Issues for the Present Curriculum Review)

4 Basic Curricular Recommendations0

4.1 Student Time Budgeting1

4.2 Overall Credit Structure 2

4.3 Course Categories and Structure 3

4.4 5-year Dual Degree and Integrated M.Tech. programs 4 5

4.5 Other Recommendations on the Curriculum6 6

5 Teaching, Learning and Evaluation Processes7 8

5.1 Credits and Courses in a Semester 9 @

5.2 L-T-P and Special Courses 9 A

5.3 Tests and Evaluations 9 A

5.4 Grading System B C

5.5 Class Size and Classroom InteractionsB D

5.6 Attendance B B

5.7 NCC, NSS and NSO Activities E F

6 Implementation and Other IssuesG H

6.1 Teachers and Teaching MethodologyI P

6.2 Monitoring and Welfare of StudentsI Q

6.3 Ethics and Values R S

6.4 Student-Teacher Interactions and Professional Activities R I

6.5 Extra Curricular Activities and Campus Life R P

7 List of RecommendationsT U

AnnexureV W

Appendix A. Major Recommendations of 1992 Curriculum Review

Appendix B. Major Curriculum Changes between 1992 and 2001

Appendix C. Alumni and Students' Feedback

Appendix D. Faculty Feedback


3/72

1. BACKGROUND

The last review of the U.G. curriculum took place during the period 1989-1991 and was

implemented in 1992. A summary of the major recommendations of this Review is attached at

Appendix A. The recommendations have been largely implemented in both letter and spirit in

the most part, though it can be said, as is the case in many implementations, that some of the key

issues/recommendations could not be implemented in their full spirit. Nevertheless, there hasbeen a positive impact of these recommendations and the academic community is largely

satisfied with it, as is apparent from the feedback received.

It must be added that the curriculum has not been stagnant since the last review took place.

Curriculum development is a continuous process (as it should be) and almost all departments

have been reviewing the courses offered by them constantly under the broad guideline of the

1992 recommendations, duly processed through BUGS & Senate (a summary of which is given

in Appendix B). During this interval, the Institute has also taken several other major initiatives

like introduction of dual degree programs in five areas along with a suitable academic structure

for them, and starting of two new B.Tech. programmes. These developments have also created

fresh debates about the design of curricula for undergraduate studies. Apart from the fact that a

major review of the curriculum once in ten years is desirable, a major justification for a

comprehensive review arises from the following developments:

(i) Information technology is making an impact on every sphere of human life. In particular,

it is playing a major role in every industry irrespective of the discipline.

(ii) Internet has established itself as a major educational resource, as well as an educational

channel. Recognizing and integrating it into the educational process is important.

(iii) A major transformation in the nation's policies and global trade practices implies that it

has become essential for industry in the country to employ state-of-the-art technology indesign, manufacturing and quality control. The distinctions between Indian and overseas

industries are getting blurred day by day. These events have thrown up new challenges

while providing immense opportunities for our graduates.

(iv) As the first generation of faculty in IITs, in general, and IIT Delhi, in particular, are

retiring, attracting qualified and talented faculty members has posed as one of the biggest


4/72

challenges facing these Institutes. A modern curriculum, providing opportunities for

experimentation, can play a key role in attracting faculty.

(v) Traditionally, analytical abilities combined with knowledge banking and technology

exposure were the hallmarks of good education. In the evolving scenario, nurturing of

innovation and creativity along with entrepreneurship are considered as being equallyimportant. The educational process has to be re-looked at in that context.

The present Curriculum Review Committee (CRC) was advised to carry out the exercise in a

phased manner. The first phase was to identify the issues which the committee should address

and, subsequently, elicit feedback from our alumni, students and faculty about the existing

curriculum and the identified issues. A subcommittee took up the task of identifying the issues

with feedback from the departments. Another sub-committee was allocated the task of

designing suitable questionnaires for getting the feedback. For the first time, a formal feedback

was obtained by putting separate questionnaires for faculty and students/alumni, on the Institute

website. Feedback was also obtained from the departments, reflecting the collective opinion of

the departmental faculty boards. Finally, valuable feedback was also obtained from eminent

academicians outside the Institute and representatives of industry.

The next phase consisted of evolving a concept paper, which would form the basis of further

discussions at the CRC and, subsequently, at the departments and the Senate. The present

document attempts to serve this purpose. Specific recommendations are given in italics

(followed by the recommendation number) and listed in the same sequence at the end under List

of Recommendations.

2. GOALS OF IITD EDUCATION

One of the proclaimed aims of the IITs has been to provide science-based engineering education

with a view to produce quality engineer-scientists. The feedback received from a large cross-section of our alumni and faculty suggests that this self-proclaimed objective of the IIT system

has been successfully achieved by the IITD curriculum. This premise is well supported by the

general knowledge that our graduates have excelled themselves in all kinds of careers - be it

engineering, research, entrepreneurship or managerial.

At this point, it is interesting to quote the following observations of the previous CRC in its

Concept Paper:


5/72

However, the Committee is cognizant of the profound changes taking place in

the nature of industrial practices. There is rapid technological change and

obsolescence. The new information technologies are bringing with them a new

world order with a global market place, information driven societies, and

knowledge based industries. There is growing awareness and concern for the

impact of technological advancement on environment, depletion of resources,

and increasing social and technological inequality at national and internationallevels. Consequently, the graduates of tomorrow will have to be equipped to

meet the challenges which traditionally were outside the purview of engineering

education

It is clear that the above observations are even more true today than they were ten years or so

ago. Knowledge based industries are a reality and a nation' s wealth today may be measured as

much (if not more) by the quality of its trained manpower as by its other natural resources. In

the life-long process of learning, undergraduate education forms the intermediate step leading

from school education to a variety of options, such as, jobs and higher education. Onculmination of the latter, the individual faces the tasks of learning, reading and growing, often

without the assistance of a teacher or the environment of an institution. The primary goal of

undergraduate education thus becomes that of providing a broad based knowledge and

simultaneously building a temper for the life long process of learning and exploring. Given the

focussed mandate of the IITs, viz., technical education, and given the new technological

environment explained earlier, the goals should enable our graduates to

(i) work in, and lead teams on design, development, research, construction, production, and

managerial activities;

(ii) apply concepts and methods to upgrade and optimize engineering practices in operation,

production, maintenance and similar areas;

(iii) visualize future developments and proactively effect changes;

(iv) innovate and take up entrepreneurial activities;

(v) pursue higher studies and take-up teaching and research as a career;

(vi) understand societal dynamics and the role of technology in shaping human lives;

(vii) lead a career while upholding professional ethics; and,

(viii) become responsible citizens of India, and the world at large, with strong commitment

towards national progress, development, and social justice.

Consequently, the undergraduate curriculum should be broad-based and must

(i) provide a solid foundation of the fundamentals of sciences and technologies that form the

basis of modern technological developments,

(ii) be dynamic and in step with the rapid scientific and technological developments;


6/72

(iii) encourage self-learning;

(iv) develop a scientific temper and a spirit of inquiry; and

(v) enable proficiency in oral and written communication skills.

(vi) instill sensitivity to professional ethics and the needs of society.

Many of these goals have been the motivating factors in the past and, therefore, a starting pointfor the present exercise would be to ask whether the IITD curriculum since the last review has

been able to meet these concerns adequately.

3. MAJOR ISSUES FOR THE PRESENT CURRICULUM REVIEW

Based on the analyses of the responses received, the Committee has identified the following

major issues for curriculum review. A little reflection and analysis would show that whereas by

and large, the curriculum has been successful in meeting many of its stated objectives, it falls

short of the above expectations in the following ways:

(a) Flexibility One issue that keeps coming up is the rigidity of the structure. Though

this issue was addressed in the last review, the response of alumni and students shows

that the lack of flexibility in choosing courses remains a matter of concern. This aspect

invloves both the large number of categories in which the courses are classified as well

as the restriction of credits under each category.

(b) Evaluation The evaluation system at IITD sometimes becomes an end in itself. It is

important to ensure that while evaluation motivates students to study, the real

educational objectives, particularly continuous learning, are not lost. There is a need to

re-look at the evaluation pattern with a view to reducing the stress on both students as

well as on the faculty. This aspect also has an important bearing on creative and design

activities that are discussed next.

(c) Design and Project Activity There are strong opinions expressed by both alumni &

students and by faculty that IITD education is largely theoretical. The result is thatgraduates have strong analytical abilities but are weak on synthesis. It is important that

design and project activities be emphasized. Such a requirement calls for introducing

new design courses and strengthening existing laboratory and project oriented courses.

Even the infrastructure required for promoting such design activities needs a major re-

look.

(d) Interdisciplinary Training It is time to recognize that not only are graduates looking

for global opportunities but also that industry in the country is getting upgraded to state-


7/72

of-the-art technologies. Training for such an environment necessitates an

interdisciplinary approach as well as a broad based education. It was such a motivation

that led to the introduction of the minor area scheme in the last curriculum review but the

scheme has not taken-off really, perhaps due to operational difficulties.

(e) Self-learning and Creativity In spite of the proclaimed goal of encouraging self -

learning and creativity, IITD's curriculum has not been successful in making studentssufficiently creative and innovative. This opinion has been expressed by a large number

of faculty, alumni and students who responded to our surveys. Nurturing creativity is a

very important aspect of any education. In the IIT system, we need to recognize that we

start with a disadvantage. The long (2 to 3 years) period of focused and very structured

preparation for JEE makes the entrant one-dimensional. Therefore, the curriculum at

IITD should provide for rekindling the creative spirit that is so vitally important for

entrepreneurship, research or other careers of significant social impact. A proper

curriculum design can act as an enabler or catalyst by increasing the flexibility available

to the students.

(f) IT in Education The use of information technology, including use of appropriate

software application packages in the design of courses and curriculum, has not been

sufficiently integrated into the UG programs. Not many courses taught at IITD make use

of computer aids or involve computer-based assignments.

(g) Teamwork and Managerial Training Managerial issues in engineering, such as, working

in large teams, strictly adhering to deadlines, taking responsibilities, coordinating with

professionals from diverse fields and with skilled and semi-skilled persons, amongst

others, have been inadequately addressed in the curriculum. Even though students pick

up sufficient communication skills, formal mechanisms to improve these through

training are either not there or are inadequate. At present, there is no formal

methodology to encourage teamwork - a very important requirement in the current

technological scenario.

(h) Co-curricular Activities A vast majority of our UG students does not participate inany co-curricular activities-whether related to academics, sports or the fine arts. Absence

of IITD UG student participation in TRYST, the student technical festival, is now a

standard feature. Reducing and rescheduling the course load should be considered for

getting them on to the sports fields and to participate in other activities. This aspect of

curriculum planning offers a considerable challenge to the faculty.

(i) Behavioral and Ethical Issues Society is changing at a very rapid pace due to the

information explosion as well as technological advances. These changes have brought


8/72

out in their wake, new issues that an engineer must address. While taking engineering

and managerial decisions, it has to be ensured that these are for the eventual good of

society at large. Conflicts often arise in taking such decisions that have moral and

ethical dimensions vis-a-vis norms and practices prevalent in society. A major challenge

for the curriculum is, therefore, to expose students to such conflicts and enable them to

take ethical decisions.

That the task is not easy becomes obvious from the following fact. The report of the previous

CRC brings out, very elegantly, a number of weaknesses that include those mentioned above. It

is interesting and a little unnerving to note that many of the weaknesses mentioned there still

exist to a large degree, as is apparent from the feedback received from all sources. Thus, in spite

of a positive direction provided by the previous review, our ability to meet some of these

objectives has been inadequate.

Based on this realization, we feel that our job is cut out for us. We have to continue from where

the previous review left, identify the reasons for failures and arrive at solutions that may have

better chances of success. The following discussions and recommendations are, in our view, a

step towards providing a curriculum framework for addressing these issues.

4 BASIC CURRICULAR RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Student Time Budgeting

The current requirement of 190 credits has been based on the assumption that students can put in

up to 60 hours of studies per week (CRC 1992). This amounts to nearly 9 hours/day on a 7-day

working week basis and nearly 12 hours/day on 5-day working week basis. As a consequence,

this load leaves the student with little free time to take part in other activities like sports and

recreation, as well as to have sufficient time to think, and be creative and innovative. Thefeedback from faculty, students and alumni indicates that a more appropriate figure will be 54

hours/week. This will enable making an additional one hour free each day for other activities.

If we grant that the increased emphasis on self-learning, project activities, library and laboratory

work will require a considerable amount of time towards self-study and assignments, it can be

argued that no more than 27 hours/week be used for class-room contact as against the present

30+. In fact, the feedback suggests an optimum figure of 24 hours/week for this purpose.


9/72

While designing the dual degree programs, especially their post-graduate components, it was

envisaged that in the latter years, students are expected to put in a larger amount of time in the

self-study mode and also spare some time for providing teaching and research assistance in their

respective departments. The latter also become important components of the learning process,

providing the students with valuable experience. Consequently, a one lecture contact hour perweek in the postgraduate courses requires 1.5 hours per week of self-study. It follows, therefore,

that the classroom contact of the dual degree students in their final year be appropriately scaled

down through appropriate reduction in the required number of credits.

4.2 Overall Credit Structure

The committee felt that a major structural weakness that exists in the present curriculum is that

the overall expectations from students of the 4-year programs, in terms of total credits and time

(both in the class-room as well as outside) is on the higher side. This credit requirement leads to

several problems for the students and also the teachers. It leaves little time for students to

pursue activities which may bring out their creative talents or to indulge in self-learning. The

sheer effort of rising up to the teachers' expectations thus becomes difficult even for the serious

and motivated students. This limitation, in turn, also leads to aberrations like copying of

assignments and laboratory reports, and a general indifference to learning beyond the classroom

content. The overloading is felt to be especially heavy in the first year, considering the fact that

the student is still adapting to a new system after leaving school. Simple rescheduling to balance

out the first year load, adds to the academic load in the later years and, simultaneously, effects a

great reduction in flexibility in both selection and offering of courses.

The committee recommends that the only way to alleviate these problems is through a reduction

in the total credit requirements from the present 190 credits to 180 credits. This reduction is also

supported by the feedback obtained from students, alumni, faculty and departments. Several of

our sister institutions (viz., IIT Kanpur, IIT Chennai and IIT Bombay) have credit requirementsof 180 or less.

On the basis of the arguments given in the previous section, the students' classroom contact time

should be limited to 26 hours per week, and the upper limit on the credits that can be

accommodated in a semester can now be worked out. Assuming a weekly average of 15 lecture

hours (@3 hours/week for 5 courses in a semester), 3 tutorial hours and up to 8 laboratory hours,


10/72

this works out to an average credit requirement of about 22 per semester. Over a period of 8

semesters, this would amount to a total of 176 credits.

(i) The Committee recommends that the total credits for the B.Tech. degree be 180. [1]

(ii) It is, therefore, recommended that the upper limit on the number of credits registered in

any semester be limited to 24. This limit is inclusive of a maximum of five lecture

courses in a semester. Credit loading beyond this number makes undue demands on

student time and has significant negative impact on the students' attitude towards work

and on the learning objectives. [2]

Based on these considerations, a typical recommended semester-wise distribution of credits and

hours is shown below in Table 4.1. It may be pointed out that this table incorporates a

subsequent recommendation in the document that the major project credits be increased to 12.

Table 4.1. Typical semester-wise distribution of credits - 4-year B.Tech. program.

Semester Credits Contact (hours/week)

I 23 27

II 23 27

III 24 27

IV 24 27V 24 26

VI 24 26

Summer Practical Training ---

VII 20 + Project Part 1 = 23 23 + Project

VIII 06 + Project Part 2= 15 08 + Project

TOTAL = 180 ---

4.3 Course Categories and Structure

The committee noted that the existing curriculum design falls short of offering students the

declared and desirable objective of providing flexibility in terms of choice of courses. In

principle, it should be possible for students to choose courses depending on their personal needs

and objectives, beyond the compulsory foundation courses in Basic Sciences, Humanities,

Engineering Sciences and Arts, and the Departmental requirements. In the existing curriculum

this flexibility is available to the extent of 12 credits under the open category of which only 6

credits need to be outside the departmental courses. The Committee strongly feels that this limit


11/72

is insufficient for students to develop either a broad base or to specialize significantly outside the

departmental courses. The Committee feels that the number of such open elective credits should

be increased sufficiently in order to introduce the desired flexibility. With these increased

numbers, students can plan a variety of options for themselves. They could, for example, use

this flexibility to complete a "minor area requirement" without having to register for more UG

credits. Alternatively, they could spread their choices across various types and categories for abroad interdisciplinary base.

The Committee, therefore, recommends that the B.Tech. program structure be suitably modified

to give greater flexibility to the students in making their choice of courses through increase in

the OC credits. It is proposed that the undergraduate core will comprise of the usual mix of BS,

ES & EA, and DC courses. The undergraduate electives will be comprised of DE component,

some more BS component and the humanities courses. All other categories of electives, such as,

EST, ES and EA, should be amalgamated into the open category. The students will be required

to choose OC courses from outside their respective Departments. Based on this philosophy, the

proposed overall structure that illustrates the credit distribution in terms of the existing

categories of courses, is given in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. Proposed credit structure.

UG Core (UC category) UG Electives (UE category)

Category (existing) Credits Category (existing) Credits

DC 65 DE 25

BS 20 BS 5

EA+ES 25 HM 15

OC 25

Total UC 110 Total UE 70

In keeping with the current philosophy, of the 110 core credits, the Institute Core requirement

will comprise of Mechanics (e.g. AM 110N), Computer Programming (e.g. CS 110N, CS120N),

Graphic Science (e.g. ME 110N) and Manufacturing Processes (e.g. ME 120N). Given

technological changes that have taken place in the last decade, a review of the contents, teaching

methods and the L-T-P of each of these courses is also now imperative.

This categorization leaves the students with 25 credits of his/her choice that would be adequate

even to pursue the minor area requirements. However, it is specifically recommended that


12/72

students do not choose departmental UG or PG courses under this category. In order for this

idea to succeed and achieve its professed objectives, it is imperative that every department

makes a genuine attempt to reach out to students of other departments. In other words,

Departments must identify from their existing courses or design special courses that students of

other departments can take, with the benefit of fostering inter-disciplinary interaction. Going by

past experiences, it is safe to observe that departments and centers would have a naturaltendency to give this activity a lower priority in view of their over-riding desire to look after the

needs of their own departmental courses. It is therefore recommended that the Institute

recognize such efforts through budgetary incentives to departments for creation of such courses,

and even laboratories, for reaching out to students of other departments. Another mechanism for

creation of such courses is through carefully throwing some of their basic core and elective

courses open to students of other departments as OC electives, provided that the student has the

requisite background and is interested in such courses. This will create an ideal, win-win

situation.

The key idea in the above proposed structure is that of increasing the elective credits which are

based on a student's own interests and which enables him to choose a larger set of courses he

would love to learn, within the overall constraints of his chosen degree program. The only

stipulation that we have made is that he chooses these elective credits outside his department to

give a sufficiently broad base to his/her training in one way or another. As discussed earlier, a

student could pick a broad range of courses in sciences, humanities, management or emerging

technologies. Alternately, he/she could choose them all in a focused area - such as modern

physics (or any other basic science stream). A student could even use these to complete his/her

minor area requirements of 20 credits of course work as defined for a specific minor area

program.

It is clear that the proposed structure pays a lot more emphasis to the open category courses,

since a student can now choose 20-22 credits freely from this category. As mentioned earlier,this gives the student flexibility in many ways to suit his specific needs. If this device is to be

used for enabling a student to develop a broad base, it is imperative that such a student should

have the option to choose appropriate courses under the open category. It has been found that

most students prefer to take up their DE's also under the open category. The restriction of

choosing 50% courses from outside this category under the existing rules is many times

bypassed by selecting PG courses from the department that does not serve the purpose of a


13/72

broad-based curriculum. We feel that this trend is symptomatic of a general lack of availability

of good courses from various departments under the open category.

It is proposed, therefore, that the departments be encouraged, through suitable incentives, to

design and float OE courses that can be taken by any student having a background of his own

program core components. In addition, the departments and centers may also identify suchcourses from its repertoire of Departmental, core or electives courses, which may serve as OE

course for students in other programs. Also each department should ensure that there are a

sufficient number of course choices available to their students from other departments under this

category. Other steps that will help create more courses under this category are: invite faculty in

the Centers for developing such courses, encourage departments to develop and offer such

courses for other departments; and introduce inter-disciplinary courses and projects.

(i) The Committee recommends reorganization of the structure as per Table 4.2. [3]

(ii) The Department's UG or PG courses and similar courses from other

departments/centers should not form a part of the open elective courses for students of

their own programs. [4]

(iii) Departments should identify courses or design courses that could be taken by students of

other programs as open electives in the form of an OE advisory list. At the same time,

departments may also choose to define a list of similar or overlapping courses from

other departments and centers which will not be permitted to students of their own

programs as open electives. [5] [6]

(iv) Departments should identify Minor Area schemes of 20 credits, if they so desire. A

student could use the open elective credits to complete the defined minor area

requirements. [7]

The Emerging Science and Technology (EST) category of courses was introduced at the time of

the previous curriculum review to introduce new vistas and thrusts in science and technology

that promise major new directions in the future. By their very nature, these courses were

perceived to be of highly dynamic and evolutionary in nature. In a review carried out in 1997,

the concerned Departments and Centers indicated that the set of courses offered by them were

current and would remain so for about 5 more years. Unfortunately, in almost everybody's


14/72

opinion (survey and feedback), the EST courses have not been able to keep up to their

dynamism mandate. This is not meant to be a reflection on the courses being taught under this

category. It is only that by their very nature, such courses are difficult to design and upgrade on

a continuous basis. It is also difficult to evolve a mechanism that would wind up older such

courses and replace them with new courses in this category. Also, as a result of the evolutionary

process of growth, knowledge covered in some of these courses was expected to becomemainstream, first at the graduate level and later at the undergraduate level. Thus, some of the

existing courses in this category may even qualify to become a regular DE or OE course at this

point in time. It may also have been possible that students of a discipline may not be able to

fully appreciate an emerging area in another discipline, especially if they have no background of

the basics of that area/subject.

(v) The Committee, therefore, recommends that the EST category be dropped and existing

courses under this category be offered in one of the other categories. [8]

The Curriculum should, nevertheless, provide for futuristic courses that could be taught as and

when the faculty deem it fit. Furthermore, since it may not always be possible to have a full

fledged 3 credit course in a newly emerging area, it should also be possible to have such courses

with smaller number of credits, say between 1 and 3. It is expected that many faculty members

from both departments and centers will come forward with proposals for such courses from time

to time. This flexibility will also enable short-term visitors to the departments to offer courses

of an emerging nature, which students may subscribe to under their OC component. To effect

speedy approval of such courses, the Committee recommends that a suitable simplified

procedure be evolved.

(vi) The Committee recommends that special courses of 1 or 2 credits duration on special

topics be included as electives in any category. However, no more that one such course

should be offered by any Department or Centre in a given semester. Such courses can beintroduced on a dynamic basis a semester in advance and put up to a standing committee

of the BUGS for expeditious decision and approval. [9]

Along with the above changes in the program structure, it is equally important to pay attention to

the design of courses themselves. Courses must be designed to have components that encourage

self - learning, creativity and design on the one hand, and communication skills on the other.

For this, efforts should also be made to make some of the courses project based, and this should


15/72

be built into the course content. At least one such course should be included in every

undergraduate program. In this connection, it is clarified that such a project-based/design course

must be distinct from the design content taught in a theory class or course. This course, on the

other hand, should emphasize hands-on experience. Such a course may involve study by

disassembling/reassembling, designing and building a product, or any other activity in which the

student has an opportunity to do things with his/her own hands. Such a course must not involveroutine experimentation and must have the potential to arouse the students creativity and

curiosity. This activity should be carried out at an early stage in the curriculum, preferably

before the end of the fourth semester. Also, in order to focus on students effort in terms of

his/her creativity and interest, it is recommended that such a course be evaluated on a pass/X-

grade basis rather than in terms of a regular letter grade. Too much emphasis on evaluation,

grading and examinations should give way to learning by doing and enjoyment in learning.

(vii) The Committee recommends that every department should have at least one course that

is largely project or design based. The course should be offered at an early stage in the

program. [10]

(viii) In this context, the Committee recommends that each Department should carry out an

audit of its curriculum to measure the total design effort the student is expected to put in.

This assessment could be based on the amount of significant project assignments carried

out individually or in small groups. Such an audit should be used as a guideline by

Departments for rationalizing the project/design based component in the courses. [11]

Another major weakness of the present curriculum is that it does not offer courses in biological

sciences as part of the Basic Sciences component. Today, these sciences are becoming very

important and getting increasingly integrated to other disciplines of engineering. It is

imperative, therefore, to do something about it in the curriculum. It may also be necessary toexamine how this increasing importance of biological sciences can be best handled at the

institutional level, either in the existing structure, or, if needed, through appropriate

organizational changes/additions. Do we, for example, need a new entity in the form of a

department or center of biological sciences? Until a clear organizational structure is evolved, this

responsibility could be handled by the Department of Biochemical Engineering and

Biotechnology, with participation of invited faculty and/or induction of new faculty members

where necessary. At least two faculty members with background in Biological and Life


16/72

Sciences should be appointed in the Department of Biochemical Engineering and

Biotechnology.

(ix) It is proposed that the new curriculum should have one or more courses in biological

sciences offered as electives either in the BS category, or in the open category. [12]

Some discussion is in order here regarding the administration of departmental elective courses.

It has been found that a lot of flexibility exists even now in the curriculum regarding the choice

of at least the DE's. The requirement of a ratio of about 2:1 between core and elective subjects

in each category ensures that the student can do at least 6-7 subjects of his choice under the DE

category. In practice, it is seen that the students hardly have a real choice even under this

category, let alone choice of good courses under EST/OE, etc. More often, several departments

force certain DE courses as a "must" either by advice or time-tabling devices. Even otherwise,

the "elective" nature of the DE's is manifested only in the fact that sometimes the student has a

choice to decide the semester in which he/she could do a specific DE rather than in the subjects

themselves. Some departments maintain that they do not have enough faculty members to offer

additional "electives", which totally kills the basic philosophy of choice on which the curriculum

is based. Another reason often put forward by some other departments is that for their kind of

area, the core component has to be much larger than the Institute stipulation.

(x) The Committee recommends that the Departments should give students a real choice and

must refrain from making elective courses de facto core courses. [13]

In several departments and centers, PG courses are being offered as UG electives. In several

others, though the courses are taught separately, the contents of the UG course and the

corresponding PG course are either the same or overlap substantially. Such a situation is

unlikely to benefit quality PG education.

In view of the considerable importance being given to quality postgraduate education lately, it is

now imperative to clearly distinguish between a basic broad-based education that is the hallmark

of a UG program and focussed specialization that is the hallmark of a postgraduate program. In

any case, there should be clear distribution between advanced level PG courses and courses that

can meet the requirements of senior undergraduate and entry level postgraduate courses.


17/72

(xi) The Committee recommends that, in general, advanced PG courses should not be offered

to UG students as either Departmental or as open category electives. However, if the

Department so desires, it could clearly identify a list of PG courses that could be offered

to UG students in the Departmental electives category but not in the open category. [14]

[15]

In order to emphasize the importance of better interaction, problem solving and group

discussions, amongst others, via tutorial and laboratory exercises, the previous curriculum

review had recommended that a ratio of 3:2 be maintained between credits for lectures : tutorial

+ practicals + project activities. This arrangement has been received favorably and this

Committee recommends that the guideline be continued. It is emphasized, once again, that

laboratory activity whereever possible should be design oriented rather than routine exercises

involving verification of known facts/data.

(xii) The Committee further recommends that the total number of credits be continued to be

distributed in a ratio of 3:2 between lecture: tutorial + practical + other project

activities. [16]

The major project activity is the capstone of any engineering education program. As a

consequence of the previous curriculum review, the project was split into two parts spread over

two semesters. Project allocation has also since been carried out at the end of the 6th semester,

allowing two full semesters of effort on the project. The feedback from faculty as well as

students indicates that by and large the splitting of the major project into two semesters has been

a successful experiment and must, therefore, be continued. The present Committee, too,

recommends this.

The previous CRC had also noted that project activity increasingly tends to be a paper or

software exercise rather than actualization of a process or product that stands the test of beingused. The Committee would like to re-emphasize that "design" should form the major theme for

the UG project activity and that a major project should ideally lead to a working product that

could be used in real life. Such an objective would require more effort than the presently

envisaged 6-7 credits of part 2. In order to increase the emphasis on design and product

development it is proposed that the credits for part 2 of the project should be increased by 2

credits. The total credits for the major project would then be 12; split between parts 1 and 2 as 3

and 9, respectively. In order to bring home to the students and faculty the importance of major


18/72

project results, the Committee recommends that the 2nd Friday of May can be declared as an

"Open House" day of the Institute for public display of selected Major projects. Public and

industry could be invited to the Institute through newspaper advertisements. The day could also

include a lecture of wide interest by an eminent technologist. This process will also help to

bring the Institute closer to the public and industry. Simultaneously, 2nd and 3rd year students

(and possibly 1st

year students as well) should also be introduced to project activity early on intheir studies.

(xiii) The Committee recommends that the total credits for the major project be increased to

12, with Parts 1 and 2 having 3 and 9 credits, respectively. [17]

(xiv) The Committee recommends that the 2nd

Friday of May (or any other day in the 2nd

week

of May) be declared as an open house for public display of the Major Project. [18]

In order to further strengthen the Major Project activity, it is proposed that certain professional

practices be adhered to. As per the professional practices followed in the management of

industrial projects, the B.Tech. Major Project, too, should have a set of objectives, deliverables,

a work plan, logistics planning and milestones with discernible outputs. It is expected,

therefore, that the project beginning will be geared towards detailing these aspects. At the mid-

term evaluation of Part-I, the student(s) should make a presentation of the detailed project plan

before a suitable committee. After incorporating the committees feedback, the work plan and

milestone-wise deliverables would be frozen and used as yardsticks for the subsequent

evaluations for which marks (and later a grade) would be awarded.

(xv) The Committee recommends that the mid term assessment of Major Project Part-I

should be aimed at assisting the student in finalizing the work plan and identifying

milestones and deliverables; the assessment should be carried out at the end of Project

Part 1 and a regular grade should be awarded. The evaluation of Project Part 2 shouldbe carried out in the mid-semester and then at the end of the semester keeping the

approved work plan as the yardstick, and a regular grade awarded. [19] [20]

In view of the larger number of credits being recommended for the major project (12 = 3 + 9), it

is necessary to reduce the course load in the corresponding semesters. The minimum lecture

credits that are required to be registered along with Part 2 of the Major Project may, therefore,

be reduced from the current 9 (three courses of 3 lectures/week each) to 6 (2 courses of 3 lecture


19/72

hours/week). This reduction will allow more time for the project. As before, the practice of

having to register for this minimal number of lecture course credits, viz., 6 credits, should be

continued, to discourage tendencies amongst students to accumulate credits to leave the final

semester free of lecture credits. Thus, the students will be required to register for at least 15

credits in each semester, of which at least 6 should be lecture credits.

(xvi) The Committee recommends that along with major project part 2, the student should

register for at least 6 lecture credits. [21]

With increasing interactions between IITD and industry, it should be possible for students to

execute a portion of Part 2 in an industry. Such an arrangement might require students to work

full-time for a few months in an industry, possibly outside Delhi. In such cases, the student will

not be in a position to take courses during the final semester and, consequently, the course work

will have to be completed in the pre-final semester. Clearly, a work plan for such activities will

have to be made early on in the project, possibly while registering for the project in the 6th

semester itself. Registration for additional credits in the 7th semester could then be allowed as a

very special case.

(xvii) The Committee recommends that a student be allowed to take extra credits in the 7th

semester under special circumstances so that the final semester is available for full time

project work, particularly work that is to be carried out outside Delhi. [22]

It has been the experience that even with a substantial backlog of courses, students tend to

register for the Major Project Part 1 in the 7th semester. This aberration becomes particularly

noticeable if the backlog includes several departmental core courses of 2nd and 3rd years. Clearly

this is undesirable and would affect both the course work and the project output. It is expected

that by and large, the student should have completed most of the core courses at the time of

starting his/her Major Project activity. Thus, the upper limit on the remaining course work to bedone along with Major Project should not exceed the typical plan of such coursework in the last

two semesters (viz., 20 + 6 = 26 credits, as in Table 4.1) by 1 to 2 courses, i.e., by about 10

credits. This works out to 36 credits of coursework. Allowing 12 credits for the project, a

student should, therefore, have obtained at least 132 credits in order to be eligible for

undertaking Major Project activity.


20/72

(xviii) The Committee recommends that 132 earned credits should be a pre-requisite to register

for Major Project part 1. [23]

The Mini Projectand Independent Study concepts were introduced after the previous curriculum

review to encourage learning outside the classroom. Subsequently, in 1997, an assessment was

carried out which concluded that they had been successful but that grades were being awardedrather leniently. As a consequence, the minimum CGPA required for registering for these

courses was increased to 6.5 and 7.0 for Mini Project and Independent Study, respectively. The

surveys show that whereas these courses have been received very favorably by student

community, the response of a section of the faculty has been rather lukewarm. The reason is

that the mini- project activity has introduced additional load on the faculty, both as advisers, and

as evaluators. However, its usefulness as a means to enhance and encourage design activity has

been acknowledged by almost everyone. The Committee recommends that these courses be

continued but with an upper bound on the number of Mini-Projects/Independent Study per

faculty member in a semester.

(xix) The Committee recommends that the Mini Project and Independent Study be continued

as Departmental electives with an upper bound on the number of Mini

Projects/Independent Study per faculty member in a semester. [24]

The previous curriculum had very rightly recognized the need for providing avenues for students

to pursue other activities for the duration of an entire semester. This facility has, however, not

been used by students. The Committee feels that the educational process for students could be

greatly strengthened by encouraging students to take time off to "see and feel the world" - so to

say. This means that students could take a semester off, say to work in industry or simply take

up a tour he may so badly have been wanting to. Such things happen routinely in the western

countries. The highly competitive Indian environment, rules such things out, thus depriving the

students of a very valuable self-learning opportunity. At times, this can bring back themotivation a student could have lost along the way, with a break facilitating the process.

Specifically, it is recommended that, the student may be allowed to take up to two semesters off

for such activities. Alternatively, she/he may also be allowed to work part-time for a semester to

gain valuable experience by reducing her/his registration in a semester. Eventually, it may be

possible for a student to earn some credits for a semester spent in an industry/research

organization. The Committee, however, strongly feels that all this should be done within the

current upper limit of 12 registered semesters for completing degree requirements. A registered


21/72

semester is one in which the student has registered for regular course work in the Institute.

However, to facilitate use of these opportunities by more students, the upper limit of 6 years (for

4-year programs) and 7 years (for dual degree and integrated M.Tech. programs) can be

stretched by one semester for every semester taken-off by a student for such a purpose, up to a

maximum of two semesters. It is clarified, however, that this limit is not being recommended

for students who lose one or more semesters as a result of disciplinary action imposed by theInstitute.

(xx) The Committee recommends that over and above the 6- and 7-year upper limit for 4-year

and dual degree/integrated M.Tech. programs, a student should be allowed one extra

semester for every semester that he/she withdraws from or goes for industrial training or

internship up to a maximum of two extra semesters. [25]

4.4 5-year Dual Degree and Integrated M.Tech. programs

The aforementioned changes in the structure of the 4-year program have an impact on the

structure of the dual-degree program. Simultaneously, the 3-semester regular M.Tech. program

has also undergone a major change,i.e., beginning July 2002, its duration will be 2 years. In the

light of these combined changes, it is imperative to have an assessment of the dual-degree

program structure. In the existing dual-degree structure, there are two basic features, viz., (i) an

expanded major project encompasses the individual B.Tech. and M.Tech. major projects, and

(ii) the open category credits of the M.Tech. are eliminated because students have taken courses

in this category for the B.Tech. part of the degree. This arrangement results in a total credit

requirement of 220-224 comprised of 180 credits for the B.Tech. degree (as against 190 credits

for the 4-year program) and 40 credits for the M.Tech. degree (as against a minimum

requirement of 48 credits for the 3-semester M.Tech. program).

The Committee feels and recommends that the present duration of five years for the dual degree

and Integrated M.Tech. programs should continue in order for these programs to remainattractive for students entering via the JEE. This ensures that the graduation of the students of

both the 4-year B.Tech. program and the 5-year dual degree and integrated M.Tech programs

will be synchronized. The Committee further recommends, however, that the summers after the

8th and 10th semesters be effectively utilized to provide additional time for academic activities.

In view of the increased credit requirements of the M.Tech. program, it is also recommended

that the credit requirement of the M.Tech. part of the dual degree programs be increased from

the existing 40 credits to 48-50 credits. Thus the total credit requirements of the dual degree and


22/72

Integrated M.Tech. programs will become 216 218 credits. This overall structure and its

comparison with that of the 4-year program is given in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3. Typical semester-wise distribution of credits - Dual-degree & Integrated M.Tech.

programs.

4-year B.Tech.program

Dual degree/5-year Integrated M.Tech.Program

Semester

Credits Contact

(hrs/week)

Credits Contact

(hrs/week)

I 23 27

II 23 27

III 24 27

IV 24 27

V 24 26

VI 24 26

Summer Practical Training --- ---

VII 20 + 3 (Project Part 1)

= 23

23 + Project 23

VIII 06 + 9 (Project Part 2)

= 15

08 + Project 03 + 18 (PG)= 21

26

Summer --- --- 6* (Project Part 1) ---

IX --- --- (10-12) + 6 (Project Part 1)

= 16 - 18

(10 12) +

Project

X --- --- 14 (Project Part 2)

= 14

Only project

TOTAL = 180 --- TOTAL = 216 218

: Same as the corresponding 4-year program.

* : Major Project Part 1 will continue into the 9th semester.

(i) The Committee recommends that the duration of the dual degree and Integrated M.Tech

programs should remain 5 years. [26]

(ii) The Committee recommends that the total credit requirements of the dual degree and

Integrated M.Tech. programs be 216-218. [27]

Of the 48-50 M.Tech. credits, the maximum program core component, exclusive of the Major

Project, is recommended to be 12 credits. The dual-degree program may provide for a Minor

Project of 3 credits in the 7th or 8th semesters that can be taken in lieu of a mini-project in the 3 rd

year as part of the B.Tech. requirements. The Committee recommends that the major project for


23/72

the dual degree and integrated M.Tech. programs be identical to that of the 2-year M.Tech.

program, i.e. 18 credits divided into parts 1 and 2 of 6 and 12 credits, respectively. Like the

undergraduate major project, the selection of topic and supervisor(s) be carried out towards the

end of the 8th semester. It is recommended that projects be carried out individually. Work on

project part 1 can then begin at the start of the summer following the 8 th semester and will

continue into the 9th

semester. The mid-term evaluation of this project should be carried outabout 2-3 weeks after the beginning of the 9th semester. Like-wise, project part 2 will continue

through the summer following the 10th semester and the final evaluation should be carried out

latest by 30th June. It is imperative that for the Major Project to be an in-depth intensive effort,

the course work should be minimal. It is with this objective that the 10 th semester is being kept

free from course work, as shown in Table 4.3. However, the Committee is cognizant of the fact

that students with a backlog of courses tend to commence Major Project activity after the 8th

semester with an adverse effect on the project. Allowing for 1 to 2 courses of backlog and

regular coursework expected at this stage, the upper limit on total credits that should be pending

at the time of commencing Major project works out to about 20 credits. Allowing for 20 credits

of project, it is, therefore, recommended that a student should have cleared at least 176 credits in

order to be eligible to register for Major Project Part 1.

(iii) The dual degree program should include either a Mini Project in the 5th

or 6th

semesters, or a Minor Project in the 7th

or 8th

semesters. [28]

(iv) The Major Project for the dual degree/Integrated M.Tech. programs should consist of

two parts, Parts 1 and 2 of 6 and 12 credits, respectively. Part 1 should be conducted

during summer after 8th

semester and in the 9th

semester, and part 2 in the 10th

semester

and the following summer. The final evaluation should be carried out latest by 30th

June.

[29]

(v) The Committee recommends that 176 earned credits should be a pre-requisite forregistering for Major Project Part 1. [30]

4.5 Other Recommendations on the Curriculum

As a consequence of the various shortcomings listed in Section 3, it is apparent that certain

aspects be formally incorporated into the curriculum. These aspects are discussed below.

(a) Design


24/72

It is re-emphasized that besides having a few specially formulated design courses on

industrial/product design, the role of design and creative activities should be highlighted in

courses wherever possible. This aspect should be enforced by indicating, in the course contents,

the extent to which these objectives are met and should, therefore, be an integral part of the

course design template. The Committee would also like to emphasize that design activities can

also be incorporated in laboratory work and in tutorial/assignments.

(b) Interdisciplinary Courses

We have already mentioned the introduction of courses in Biological Sciences. It will be highly

desirable to develop other such courses as inter-disciplinary courses and make them available to

a large segment of students across the various programs. Other examples of such courses would

be Computer Architecture, Materials and Environmental Engineering, to name a few.

The Committee recommends that identification of such inter-disciplinary courses and

developing these along with laboratory facilities, should form a major focus for curriculum

development in the near future. [31]

(c) Communication Skills

Industry surveys conducted by professional organizations have rated communication skills high

on the list of the most important attributes of engineering graduates. Its relevance in a

globalized world has already been highlighted in the opening sections of this document.

Although there are ample opportunities in the curriculum for developing communication skills,

the Committee is of the opinion that there is scope for their full exploitation by students and

teachers. Every curricular component, viz., tutorials, lectures, labs, design projects, etc. offer

such opportunities via oral and written presentations by students. A formal course on language

and communication is already offered and should be continued.

The main recommendation of the Committee in this regard is that instructors must be madeaware of and sensitive to this need. While reading the reports submitted by students, teachers

should attempt to provide feedback and suggestions for improvement of writing skills. In order

to do so, it is imperative that the task of report writing is not relegated to the last minute by

which time it is too late to effect improvements. It is also seen that students are not in the habit

of reading, usually anything beyond the lecture notes. Such reading and subsequent discussion

is an integral aspect of communication skills and one that needs to be incorporated into the

curriculum.


25/72

In the existing Curriculum, the Colloquium is a 3-credit departmental core course that provides a

formal platform for improving communication skills, both written and spoken. However, it does

fall short of achieving these objectives adequately. In the opinion of several departments, as

manifested from the feedback received, the credit weightage of Colloquium is far too large in

relation to the effort put in by a student. The Committee agrees with this view, but recommendsthat efforts should be made to increase the real work and student effort in this course, rather than

diluting it to a 1-credit effort which would not demand the seriousness, from students and

teachers, that it deserves. Besides making presentations about their practical training, the

student effort can be supplemented by presentations on material that they should read, e.g.

archived B.Tech. project reports, journal papers, patents, technical reports, amongst others. To

further increase its effectiveness, it is recommended that Colloquium be conducted in groups, as

against a single lecture section. An L-T-P structure of 0-3-0 will enable this mode of operation.

The Committee would like to emphasize that in developing communication skills, practice (in

speaking and writing) is very important along with feedback at each step. For this purpose, each

student should be required to make at least three presentations of about half-hour duration

during the course of the semester.

The Committee recommends that Colloquium have an L-T-P structure of 0-3-0 and it should be

conducted as such. [32]

(d) Humanities and Social Sciences

No broad-based education is considered complete without grounding in Humanities and Social

Sciences. Courses in humanities and social sciences have served a very useful purpose over the

years. Courses in literature, arts, philosophy, history and economics help students develop

sensitivity towards society needs and develop perspectives for changes. Dynamics of changes

brought about by technological advances can also be put into proper perspective through these

courses. It needs to be appreciated that in the process of preparation for the JEE, 11

th

and 12

th

standard students study only Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. Consequently, they are

largely ignorant of or out of touch with other subjects, including Humanities and Social

Sciences. The fresh entrant literally has to be introduced to these subjects from scratch,

something the present structure of courses, and the curriculum, are not able to achieve. It would

be preferable to have a foundations course where students are introduced to a variety of topics

and relevant themes in Humanities and in Social Sciences. Such foundation courses are

currently in place at several universities abroad, and at some of the IITs. It is, of course,


26/72

imperative that such a course be planned and executed such that it excites the students towards

these subjects.

Much as the Committee would like to introduce such a course into the Curriculum in the first

year, it feels that it would be rather impractical to implement this idea in view of the large

number of students and the paucity of faculty in the areas of Humanities and Social Sciences.As a via media, the Committee suggests that ways and means be explored to introduce the

importance of various aspects of Humanities and Social Sciences in their first year. A possible

mechanism would be by organizing a seminar series with lectures by IITD faculty and by

eminent personalities in these areas. Such a series could have fortnightly lectures of two hours

duration and be assigned one credit in the second semester.

The Committee recommends that a one-credit course be introduced in the first year that will

introduce students to various facets of Humanities and Social Sciences via guest lectures. [33]

(e) Introduction to the Department

In the present curriculum design, students take Basic Science (BS) and Engineering Arts and

Sciences (EA & ES) courses in the first year. It is only in the third semester that courses related

to their chosen program are taught. Such an arrangement has had its adverse impact in that: (a)

students have little idea about what their program is all about, and (b) they often wonder as to

why after studying physics, chemistry and mathematics in school they are again studying the

same subjects. After the previous curriculum review, this issue was addressed by introducing a

non-credit core course Introduction to the Department in the second semester of the first year.

This experiment has met with limited success only, because generally the course is delivered in

a one-hour weekly lecture format. This limited duration and the very heavy course load in the

first semester leave no space for any interesting and more exciting introduction to the

engineering profession, in general, and their major area in particular.

The Committee is of the view that students should be introduced more effectively to their major

area in the first semester itself. The broad objective here should be to make the engineering

aspect of their education at IIT more immediate. In other words, fresh students should be

exposed to the world of engineering in a direct, preferably hands-on, manner immediately on

joining the Institute. Instead of lecturing, it would be advisable to have a more relaxed and

enjoyable atmosphere around this activity, such as, via industry visits, hands-on laboratory

activities (individually and in groups) and discussions with alumni and senior students, amongst


27/72

others. In a way, students will be exposed to what encompasses engineering related to their

program; the How and Why would follow in the core and elective courses to be taken later.

The exposure so gained could not only motivate them but also, facilitate inter-linking later

courses with their applications. Such a course would necessarily be unique to the program and,

hence, should be included in the departmental core. It could be titled as Introduction to

Engineering, e.g. the Civil Engineering course would be titled Introductionto Civil Engineering, and so on. Being a first introduction to the program, it is absolutely

critical that this course be planned and executed in a meticulous manner. In particular, attention

needs to be given to setting-up creative and enjoyable laboratory work and ensuring interactions

between faculty and students in a relaxed atmosphere. Given the practical nature of this course,

its L-T-P should be 0-0-4 and it should be of two credits. This two-credit course could be given

on a pass/continuation grade basis; in case the performance is not satisfactory, the student will

have to register for this course at the next available opportunity. Consequently, the existing non-

credit course Introduction to the Department becomes redundant.

The Committee recommends that the existing non-credit course Introduction to the

Department be replaced by a two-credit, 0-0-4 L-T-P, course Introduction to

Engineering in the first year first semester as part of the Departmental Core.

This course should be graded on pass/continuation grade basis. [34]

(f) Practical Training, Industrial Tour and Professional Practices

Practical training has been a core component of the undergraduate program. The feedback from

alumni and students, faculty and many departments indicates that there is a strong support for

continuing this component of the curriculum. The 1992 review committee had envisaged

strengthening of this component by increasing its duration from 50 to 60 working days,

however, the same could not be implemented due to scheduling constraints. For instance, with

several organizations, especially in foreign companies, observing 5-day work week, it has

become imperative to set aside at least 11 weeks for the summer break which in turn constrainsthe semester schedule. Although the benefits of an exposure to an industrial setting are widely

acknowledged, in the recent past, there has been an increasing trend amongst students to seek

practical training in academic institutions and research laboratories abroad. Such students do

not get an exposure to Indian industry which reinforces their worldview that there is nothing

interesting and exciting happening in India. They also remain oblivious to the needs of Indian

society at large and technological aspects, in particular. Further, practical training in an

academic institution falls short of the stated objectives in that it does not expose students to an


28/72

industrial environment at all. However, this objective can, to a good extent, be realized via

practical training in research and development organizations.

While by and large the training has been viewed as satisfactory, there has been concern, from

students, alumni and faculty that not all host organizations attach seriousness to practical

training that is expected from them. Thus, the practical training provided by various industriesis not of uniform quality. While opportunities for practical training are limited because of the

nature of some organizations, in other cases, the organization itself has a casual attitude towards

trainees. Both scenarios have an adverse impact on the attitude of students to training while

simultaneously falling short of its intended goals.

The Committee recognizes that the primary purpose of practical training is to provide the

student with an opportunity to observe and understand industrial practices, processes and

dynamics. Clearly, such an objective is very desirable for a student aspiring to be an

engineer/engineering manager and the Committee is, therefore, of the view that the requirement

of practical training of 50 working days be continued. The need for advanced planning of the

training program has an increasingly important role in the current scenario. Departments now

need to be more proactive in identifying industries and working out a training program well in

advance of the commencement of training. Amongst others, such planning should ensure

linkages to the core curriculum which complement and supplement classroom learning at the

Institute. Also, the Committee feels that training in academic institutions should be generally

discouraged because it does not meet the broad objectives of such training.

The Committee recommends that practical training of 50 working days, preferably in industry

and R & D institutions in India, should continue to be a mandatory curricular requirement.

Practical training in academic institutions should not be permitted. Departments should be

proactive in identifying industries, formulating a work plan and increasing the effectiveness of

practical training. [35]

Beginning with 1992, the Industrial Tour at the end of the 5th semester was made mandatory

with duration of at least 15 days and visits to at least 10 industries. Besides being an extended

group outing, it was anticipated that the tour would expose students to industry and also to the

country. Alumni and students feedback indicates that these objectives have been largely realized

and that it should be retained. The faculty, though, is of the opinion that considering all aspects,

it may not be worthwhile to continue with the industrial tour. Increasing student enrolment,


29/72

pressure on faculty time, funding and logistic difficulties, besides others, have indeed posed

serious problems in recent years. Some of these difficulties could be overcome by making the

industrial tour concept more flexible so that Departments can plan it in the best possible way.

One way of increasing flexibility in this regard would be to make the industrial tour an integral

component of the Professional Practices course.

The one-credit core course of Professional Practices of L-T-P 1-0-0 was introduced for

providing an insight into the world of professional life, via guest lectures by senior industry

executives. Feedback from alumni, students and faculty indicates that this objective has by and

large not been achieved. The Committee would like to emphasize that professional practices are

best appreciated by exposure to industry, such as, in practical training amongst others, and

simultaneously experiencing these in day-to-day work at the Institute. The Committee would

like to emphasize that faculty and students both have important roles in making professional

practices an integral part of regular academic activities, right from the 1st year itself (e.g. in

laboratory work, major projects, etc.), and through campus activities.

The Committee recommends that the Professional Practices course should be a departmental

elective of two credits with in-built industrial tours besides lectures and iscussion sesions by

industry executives and alumni. Such activities require long lead periods and coupled with the

deadlines of the semester schedule, the one semester duration should be increased to two

semesters. Consequently, the course would be carried out in the 5th and 6th semesters and

students would opt for it while registering in the 4th semester. Activities, such as, industrial

tours of longer duration could be scheduled in the winter break between these semesters. This

replacement of the present 15-day industrial tour would make the logistics manageable while

retaining the benefits to students and meeting faculty constraints. All these efforts by their very

nature are practice oriented and, therefore, the course L-T-P should be 0-1-2. The broad outline

of the course and evaluation method would have to be announced when it is offered; at the end

of the 5

th

semester a continuation grade would be awarded and a regular grade awarded at theend of the 6th semester. Such interactions occur best in small class sizes, typically 15-20, and

Departments can design their own policy, if desired, to limit enrolment at the time of

registration. Being a part of the regular course offering, students would no longer be charged for

this activity and Institute norms could be followed for making payments.

The Committee recommends that Professional Practices course should be offered as a

departmental elective course of 2 credits with 0-1-2 L-T-P and regular grade. It should include


30/72

industrial tours, lectures and discussions, and be carried out over two semesters (5th

and 6th

)

with continuation grade awarded at the end of the 5th

semester. [36]

The current mandatory Industrial Tour at the end of the 5th

semester should be discontinued.

[37]

5 TEACHING, LEARNING AND EVALUATION PROCESSES

No curriculum design can be effective unless it is executed by competent teaching, effective

learning processes, and suitable evaluation processes. The previous CRC has identified

important issues that influence the effectiveness of the educational processes and made a number

of important recommendations. Some of these are worth repeating here, since the present

committee agrees with and recommends their continuation. Some of the recommendations have

not been followed up. We also indicate some deviations from the previous recommendations as

well as make some new recommendations, which we feel will improve the teaching-learning

environment.

5.1 Credits and Courses in a Semester

As already indicated, an important aspect of encouraging self-and creative learning is to allow

the students some free time by keeping the class-room contact at an optimum level. This

optimum level was correctly identified by the earlier review committee to be 5 lecture courses of

3 credits (i.e. no more than 15 lecture credits in any semester). In reality, however, most students

end up taking 6 courses in view of the rather large credit requirements for the B.Tech. degree.

This course work overloads them and creates conditions not conducive to generating excitement

and sustaining it. The reduced requirement of 180 credits should help meet these objectives

better. Particular care must be taken, however, by the departments while grouping departmental

elective courses in various slots at various levels, to ensure maximum flexibility and logical

sequencing, as required. It is also important to follow this grouping as far as possible. In

exceptional circumstances, such as, semester withdrawal by a student with otherwise satisfactoryperformance or need for an additional 1-2 courses to complete the degree requirements within

the 4-year limit, amongst others, this upper limit could occasionally be relaxed to 6 courses. It

should be emphasized here that this relaxation is not to be the norm but an exception and should

not be granted if the students performance is below average.


31/72

The Committee recommends that the upper limit on the number of lecture credits registered in

any semester be limited to 15 corresponding to at most 5 courses. Under exceptional

circumstances, this limit could be relaxed to at most 6 courses. [38]

5.2 L-T-P and Special Courses

The Committee also agrees that the lecture-tutorial content of semester long courses be peggedto a minimum of 3 credits, other than some very special courses. However, in order to create

more flexibility, this Committee recommends that it should be possible to create smaller

duration courses within the existing L- T -P structure and slotting, with a weight of 1-2 credits.

An example of the benefit of this structure would be to have, say, a 14 lecture 1-credit course

given over 4-6 weeks duration by a visiting faculty member on a very special and current topic.

This will not only make effective use of short-term visitors, but also provide opportunities for

students to be exposed to an area of current interest. A second use of such a structure as already

pointed out, would be for introducing emerging subjects of interest in Science & Technology,

for which a regular 3-credit course of 40-45 lectures may be inappropriate. On the other hand, a

4-week course of about 14-16 lectures may be the ideal framework for, say, a course on a special

or emerging topic by a Center faculty member. Recommendation (vi) of section 4.3, if

implemented, would help achieve these objectives adequately.

5.3 Tests and Evaluations

While the existing system of two minor tests and a major test is working well, some faculty

members strongly feel that this frequency is rather high. The break due to minor tests adversely

affects the flow of the teaching. The test frequency is such that the material covered in the

lectures does not warrant a full test. Tutorial coverage, too, is non-uniform amongst groups.

With most of the course marks based on these tests, student effort is concentrated in a few days

before the tests begin. The time period between tests is such that instructors are not able to

include in-depth independent studies as part of the course. Consequently, studying for tests has

become synonymous with reading lecture notes only. Project activities too have sufferedbecause students stop work on the days when tests are around the corner. In recent years,

increase in student strength has greatly added to the evaluation work of teachers, particularly in

large classes and most departmental core courses. The Committee appreciates these issues and

recommends that only one mid-term and an end-term examination should be mandatory, with

durations 1.5 and 2.5 hours, respectively. Further, the scheduling should be such that course

coordinators, if they so wish, can extend this duration by half-an-hour.


32/72

However, in the interest of continuous learning, the teachers are free to devise their own systems

of additional evaluations, viz., through quizzes, take-home examinations, assignments, viva-

voce, term papers, etc. A concerted effort should be made to include design activity and creative

thinking in the evaluation process. It is also important to note that weights given to different

components of a course during evaluations should be commensurate with the credit structure of

the course.

The Committee recommends that there be one mid-term test of 1.5 hours duration and an end-

term test of 2.5 hours duration. Teachers are encouraged to complement these with other modes

of evaluation which give due importance to continuous learning, self-learning, creativity and

design. [39]

The Committee also recommends a preparatory period of 1-2 days before these examinations, if

possible. [39]

5.4 Grading System

The Committee finds the 10-point scale grading system to have wide acceptance and, therefore,

recommends its continuation. The Committee, however, noted that the existing system of

grading overemphasizes relative standing amongst students. It was of the view that such an

overemphasis on relative grading generally de-motivates students, especially, those who always

expect to get a grade lower than B(-) and sometimes give up serious studies. The class objective

under such circumstances tends to mediocrity rather than pursuit of excellence. It is important

to realize that faculty members need to exercise their judgment in setting examination paper and

assignments, etc. to address a spectrum of students, rather than only the brightest of them. It

would be advisable, therefore, to encourage the faculty to understand the grading system in a

holistic manner especially in the context of an IIT environment, which admits amongst the

brightest students in the country.

In the light of the above discussion, the Committee feels that grading should reflect a students

own proficiency in the subject and not just in relation to that of other students. While relative

standing of the students should be clearly indicated by their grades, the process of awarding

grades should not be based on fitting these to some pre-conceived distribution, such as, a normal

distribution. It is, therefore, necessary that teachers formulate appropriate procedures to award

grades that are reflective of the students performance vis--vis the instructors expectations. It


33/72

is expected that this would motivate students to put in their best effort, rather than giving up in

view of what has been said in the previous paragraph.

The Committee is of the view that the existing floor limit of 80% for award of A grade ensures

that this grade is awarded to truly outstanding students. Similarly, a minimum requirement of

30% for award of D grade would help to maintain a minimum standard. The Committee,therefore, recommends that these limits be continued. It should also be emphasized that course

coordinators, if they so want, can set limits above these minimum values.

The Committee recommends that the 7-point grading system be continued along with the floor

limit of at least 80% and 30% for award of A and D grades, respectively. [40]

The Committee recommends that the existing philosophy of relative grading be replaced by one

that emphasizes absolute performance in relation to the teachers expectations. [41]

In the current curriculum, the non-credit core courses, viz., Introduction to the Department,

NCC, NSS, NSO and Practical Training, are awarded S or Z grades representing satisfactory

completion and unsatisfactory completion, respectively. Since satisfactory completion is

mandatory, it would be preferable to award a continuation grade. The interpretation of the Z

grade would then be Course continuation in lieu of the present Unsatisfactory Completion.

In the proposed structure, the courses in which these grades will be awarded are Introduction to

Engineering, NCC/NSS/NSO, Professional Practices and Practical Training.

The Committee recommends that for the courses Introduction to Engineering,

NCC, NSS, NSO, Professional Practices and Practical Training, an S grade be awarded in case

of satisfactory completion or Z grade in case of incomplete work. The interpretation of Z

grade should be Course continuation. [42]

5.5 Class Size and Classroom Interactions

The issue of large versus small lecture sections/classes has vexed many a faculty member for

some years now. Admittedly, small classes help a better rapport with students and, therefore,

are to be preferred from a teaching-learning point of view. On the other hand, increasing

number of students, and significant increase in the number of UG and PG programs is already


34/72

putting enormous load on the faculty members. This situation is likely to become more serious

in the near future with further increase in student strength.

At the outset it is important to realize that lectures are not the only modes for close student-

teacher interaction. As a matter of fact, tutorials and practicals that usually have 15-20 students

with one teacher automatically provide an excellent platform for extremely close interaction.However, feedback from both alumni and students, and faculty indicate disturbing trends, viz.,

10% of the students in a typical class ask 90% of the questions, and weak students generally do

not interact in classes at all. Thus, even if one assumes that a lecture class of 50 enables greater

interaction, this is essentially limited to about 10% of the class. In a way the majority of students

have "tuned out" of the class. This feedback also suggests that opportunity provided by tutorials

and practicals is not being fully realized and there is substantial scope for improvement.

Even assuming that faculty-student ratio is maintained at the existing level, these added

demands and increasing student strength require a better and more efficient use of the faculty

resources, and allotting multiple teachers to small lecture sections is becoming a lu

iit learning concept

Documents