5. Learning and Teaching

Faculty orientation deck · draft / consultation marks

150score (Autonomous)

7metrics (Autonomous)

Processcategory

Criterion 5

Criterion 5 | Learning and Teaching

Understanding the metrics · Preparing the institution

Meaning • Documents • Responsibilities • Measurement
8 baseline metrics + 1 supplementary topics

Orientation to the proposed ten-attribute reform framework. Consultation/draft marks are not final official scoring rules.

Faculty orientation edition • 23 October 2026

Metric 5.1 | Pedagogical Approaches

35 marks

Explain how teachers select methods that help students learn: peer, group, inquiry, problem-based, project-based and technology-supported learning.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Sample lesson plans for each method claimed.
teaching/activity records.
assessed student work and reflection.• Data on website - links

Who is responsible?

Individual teachers and course coordinators.
HoDs.
LMS Team /IQAC committee.

Teaching learning techniques include:

Lecture based teaching-learning
Group- teaching and learning
Individual learning/self-study
Inquiry based learning
Kinaesthetic learning
Game Based learning
Expeditionary learning
Technology based learning
Peer teaching
Learning through problem-solving,
Project based learning, etc

Pedagogical Approaches | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Document actual classroom use and learning purpose; a list of fashionable methods is not evidence of implementation.

Draft weightage / source maximum

35 marks

Consultation metric 5.1

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

Which topics need approaches beyond lectures?

How can we engage students with different learning needs?

What evidence will show that the chosen method improved learning?

Redesign one lesson using an appropriate participatory approach.
Specify the learning outcome, activity and assessment method.
Maintain lesson plans, student outputs and brief reflections on effectiveness

Metric 5.2 | Internships and Field Projects

No separate allocation established

Explain supervised learning in workplaces or field settings, with defined objectives, completion and assessment. Separate curriculum-integrated work from optional exposure.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Host permission and student allocation.
attendance/completion certificates.
evaluated reports and supervisor feedback.

Who is responsible?

Internship/Fieldwork coordinator.
HoDs and faculty supervisors.
host organisations.

Percentage of students undertaking –

Internships
Field Projects

S1/S2: topic and numbering. W1/W2: contextual description where matched. Checklist/roles: advisory. · Image/source number: 5.2 • Included in the 63-metric autonomous working baseline

Internships and Field Projects | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Unique participating students ÷ eligible students × 100 may describe coverage; the consultation source also captures curricular integration under Curriculum Design.

Draft weightage / source maximum

No separate allocation established

Strategic planning & Discussion

A field project has a defined question, supervisor, attendance, report and assessment.

How do internships and field projects connect classroom learning with real-world work?

What barriers prevent students from participating?

How will we assess individual learning and contribution?

densify relevant internship opportunities and field-project partners.
Define learning objectives, duration, supervision and assessment.
Monitor participation, progress and completion.

Curricular integration overlaps consultation metric 1.4; do not duplicate its 10 Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Do not count an informal trip as a completed assessed field project.

Metric 5.3 | Assessment

25 marks

Explain continuous and end-course assessment and how methods test intended learning outcomes. Include fairness, moderation and timely feedback.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Approved assessment regulations and BOE/Academic Council minutes.
sample questions and rubrics.
evaluated work and moderation records.

Who is responsible?

Controller of Examinations and Examination Committee
course teachers.
HoDs.

The Continuous Evaluation system of the institution involves the following methods:

Quiz with MCQ
Seminar presentations
Case study
Projects
Assignments
Any other, please specify (for e.g. self-assessment, peer assessment, assessment of vocational skills)

Assessment | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Show the approved components and actual assessment evidence. Internal assessment weights are not NAAC metric weightages.

Draft weightage / source maximum

25 marks

Consultation metric 5.4

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

Do our assessments test understanding and application—not just recall?

How can we ensure fair assessment of individual contributions?

How do students use feedback to improve their learning?

Plan continuous assessment using suitable quizzes, seminars, case studies, projects and assignments.
Align assessment tasks with course outcomes.
Include self-assessment, peer assessment or vocational-skill assessment where appropriate.
Provide timely feedback and opportunities for improvement

The course assessment scheme is not the NAAC scoring scheme.

Metric 5.4 | Academic Grievances Redressal

15 marks

Explain student access to answer-script copies, re-totaling, re-evaluation and academic appeals under approved rules.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Examination/grievance policy.
anonymized case and disposal register.
decision/appeal and closure records.Committee Minutes

Who is responsible?

Controller of Examinations.
Academic Grievance redressal Cell.
Principal.

The Grievance redressal system in the academic areas includes:

Sharing copies of answer script
Re-totalling
Re-evaluation
Shortage Attendance
Any others

Academic Grievances Redressal | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Track receipt, decision and disposal time; restrict personal records. Do not invent a compulsory resolution-day threshold.

Draft weightage / source maximum

15 marks

Consultation metric 5.6

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

Do students know where and how to raise academic grievances?

How can we ensure fair, timely and confidential handling?

What recurring grievances indicate a need for systemic improvement?

A re-evaluation request is acknowledged, decided under the published policy and closed with a recorded response.
Communicate procedures for answer-script access, re-totalling and re-evaluation.
Explain attendance-shortage rules and available grievance procedures.
Provide accessible submission channels and clear resolution timelines.

Use anonymised summaries, not identifiable student case files, in public presentations.

Metric 5.5 | Catering to Diversity

15 marks

Explain academic support for different preparation levels and learning needs through bridge, remedial, enrichment and language-support activities.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Identification/support plan.
circulars, timetables and participant lists.
activity reports and progress review.

Who is responsible?

HoDs and course teachers.
remedial/bridge-course coordinators.
student-support committees.

Support for Differential Learning includes:

Inclusive Remedial Teaching;
Peer assisted Remedial Teaching;
Multi-Sensory Remedial Teaching;
Bridge courses;
Enrichment courses;
Language proficiency courses;
Teaching and writing examinations in Bhartiya Bhashas

Catering to Diversity | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Identify the need, intervention and observed progress; do not label students publicly or equate attendance alone with improvement.

Draft weightage / source maximum

15 marks

Consultation metric 5.5

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

How do we identify learning needs without labelling or stigmatising students?

Which students need foundational support, language assistance or enrichment?

How will we assess whether the support has helped?

Identify varied learning needs through entry-level assessments and student interaction.
Plan inclusive, peer-assisted and multisensory remedial teaching.
Offer bridge, enrichment and language-proficiency courses.
Facilitate teaching and examination writing in Bharatiya Bhashas, according to applicable provisions

Metric 5.6 | Learning Management System

20 marks

Explain the educational use of the institutional LMS for materials, activities, assignments, feedback and blended learning—not software development.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Dated course/module screenshots.
examples of assignments and feedback.
activity summaries and learner-support records.

Who is responsible?

Course teachers and LMS academic coordinator.
HoDs.
teaching-learning committee.

The Institutional LMS includes the following - Sharing teachingMaterial, Submission of Assignments,Mobile Learning, E-discussion platforms, Assessment outcomes, Blended learning support, Asynchronous learning:

Effective use of the institution LMS is reflected through the following:

Sharing teaching materials
Submission of assignment
Assessment outcomes
Blended learning support

Learning Management System | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Demonstrate actual teaching use. Course-shell creation and login counts alone do not establish learning effectiveness.

Draft weightage / source maximum

20 marks

Strategic planning & Discussion

Are we using the LMS for learning interaction—or only uploading files?

How can online activities complement classroom teaching?

What access or usability barriers do students face?

Organise course-wise teaching materials and learning activities on the LMS.
Enable assignment submission, feedback and assessment-result sharing.
Integrate online activities with classroom teaching.
Provide mobile-accessible resources, discussion forums and asynchronous learning opportunities.

Supporting draft metric 5.2 Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Screenshots of empty courses do not show educational use.

Metric 5.7 | Industry-Academia Linkage

25 marks

Explain active collaboration through expert teaching, visits, joint workshops and other relevant learning opportunities. Partnerships must generate activities.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Valid agreement or collaboration letter.
expert lecture/visit/workshop reports.
attendance, feedback and outcomes.

Who is responsible?

Industry-linkage and placement cells.
HoDs.
partner organisations.

Nature of industry academia collaboration and activities involvesthe following:

Lectures from Industry experts
Field visit/Industry visit
Internship outside the curriculum
Collaborative workshop/ seminar/ conference with industry and stakeholders

Industry-Academia Linkage | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Distinguish signed agreements from activities implemented; connect the activity to student learning.

Draft weightage / source maximum

25 marks

Strategic planning & Discussion

Which industry partnerships are relevant to our disciplines?

How can collaborations address students’ skill and career needs?

What learning or follow-up action should result from each activity?

Organise lectures and interactions with industry experts.
Arrange field visits and industry visits with defined learning objectives.
Facilitate internships outside the curriculum.
Conduct collaborative workshops, seminars and conferences with industry and stakeholders.

Supporting draft metric 5.3 Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Metric 5.8 • Adherence to Academic Calendar

15 marksSupplementary coverage · not an additional confirmed scored metric

Explain delivery against the approved teaching and examination calendar and timely publication of results. Record actual dates and approved deviations.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Approved academic calendar.
teaching-day and examination records.
COE reports and result notifications.

Who is responsible?

Academic Coordinator and Controller of Examinations.
HoDs.
Principal.

Whether the number of teaching days are followed as per the UGC guidelines:Number of teaching days in a year =
Average number of days from the date of last semester end/year-end examination till the last date of declaration of result year-wise during the last three years

Adherence to Academic Calendar | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Report teaching days and date difference between examination completion and result publication by semester/year. State the method before averaging.

Draft weightage / source maximum

15 marks

Consultation metric 5.8

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

If the final examination ends on 10 April and results are declared on 30 April, the elapsed interval is 20 days.

The date difference is an indicator, not a verified 20-day scoring rule.

Weightage reference

Pedagogical Approaches35 marks.
Internships and Field ProjectsNo separate allocation established.
Assessment25 marks.
Academic Grievances Redressal15 marks.
Catering to Diversity15 marks.
Learning Management System20 marks.
Industry-Academia Linkage25 marks.
Adherence to Academic Calendar15 marks.

Faculty preparation checklist

Prepare the evidence

Use approved, dated and signed academic/administrative records.
Prepare a concise explanation supported by the relevant primary records.
State the period, cohort, unit and counting method for numerical claims.
Use source-specified periods only where confirmed; verify the final applicable window.

Coordinate responsibility

Lead coordinator consolidates the criterion; departments supply subject records.
HoDs verify academic claims; relevant offices verify finance, HR, exams and admissions.
Academic Council/Board of Studies approvals support curriculum decisions.
Protect personal data and use anonymised summaries for sensitive records.

Orientation discussion and immediate institutional actions

Questions for faculty and departments

Which existing activity demonstrates this criterion most convincingly?.
Which claim currently lacks an approved document or primary record?.
Where are counts inconsistent between departments and central offices?.
Which improvement needs an academic or administrative decision?.

Actions after the orientation

Nominate criterion and metric-level faculty/office leads.
Prepare a document inventory and identify genuine gaps.
Correct the academic/administrative practice—not just the report wording.
Ask IQAC to confirm the applicable framework, periods and scoring source before submission.