What is CO-PO mapping?
The CO PO full form is Course Outcomes and Program Outcomes. CO-PO mapping links each course outcome to the program outcomes it supports and records how strongly it supports each one. What you end up with is a matrix: course outcomes as rows, program outcomes as columns and a correlation level in every cell.
Some people write it as PO-CO mapping, or CO and PO mapping, and they all mean the same thing. Once the department’s program specific outcomes are added, it becomes CO-PO-PSO mapping.
CO-PO mapping is one piece of a wider approach. If the idea is new to you, our guide to outcome based education is a good place to begin.
Program outcomes and course outcomes
| Term | Full form | Level | What it states | Typical count |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PO | Program Outcome | Whole program | What every graduate can do at graduation | Set or guided by the accreditation body |
| PSO | Program Specific Outcome | Whole program, one discipline | Discipline-specific abilities the department adds | Usually a few per program |
| CO | Course Outcome | One course | What a student can do at the end of that course | Often four to six per course |
Program outcomes and course outcomes go together. POs describe where the program is heading, and COs describe what each course adds on the way there. If no course outcome maps to a program outcome, the curriculum has a gap.
The CO-PO mapping matrix
Every cell in the matrix holds one correlation level:
| Level | Meaning | When to use it |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | High (substantial) | The course outcome directly develops this program outcome, and students are assessed on it |
| 2 | Medium (moderate) | The course outcome develops this program outcome in part |
| 1 | Low (slight) | The course outcome touches this program outcome |
| – | No correlation | The course outcome does not address this program outcome |
Think of the matrix as a record of honest links, since it doesn’t score the course. Each level should be defensible from what is taught and assessed.
How to do CO-PO mapping
- Fix the POs and PSOs for the program, using the exact wording in your accreditation documents.
- Finalize the course outcomes for the course. Give each one a single measurable verb and a Bloom’s level.
- Read each CO against each PO. For every pair, ask whether this course outcome builds the ability and whether it’s assessed.
- Assign a level of 3, 2, 1 or “-” to every pair.
- Write a one-line justification for each non-empty cell. Reviewers often ask to see them, and writing them helps you catch weak mappings.
- Review across the program. Lay all the course matrices side by side and check that each PO is covered at a high level somewhere. Close any gaps through the curriculum instead of inflating the numbers.
CO-PO mapping example
This example is for illustration only. We made up the course, outcomes and levels for this guide, and the program outcomes are shortened, generic labels that don’t follow any accreditation body’s wording.
The course outcomes
Course: Data Structures (second year, B.Tech Computer Science). Example only.
- CO1: Explain how arrays, linked lists, stacks and queues store data. (Understand)
- CO2: Implement searching and sorting algorithms. (Apply)
- CO3: Analyze the time and space complexity of an algorithm. (Analyze)
- CO4: Choose and justify a data structure for a given problem. (Evaluate)
- CO5: Design a small application that combines several data structures, working in a team. (Create)
The example uses these program outcomes (shortened labels): PO1 Engineering knowledge, PO2 Problem analysis, PO3 Design of solutions, PO5 Modern tool use, PO9 Teamwork and PO10 Communication. The program specific outcomes are PSO1 Software development and PSO2 Data-intensive applications.
The CO PO PSO mapping matrix
| CO | PO1 | PO2 | PO3 | PO5 | PO9 | PO10 | PSO1 | PSO2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO1 | 3 | 1 | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 |
| CO2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | – | – | 3 | 1 |
| CO3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | – | – | – | 2 | 2 |
| CO4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | – | – | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| CO5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
CO-PO mapping justification
A good justification says what is taught and how it’s assessed. Here are some from the matrix above:
- CO1 to PO1 = 3. Knowing how core data structures store data is foundational engineering knowledge, and the internal tests and end-semester exam test it directly.
- CO3 to PO2 = 3. Complexity analysis is a form of problem analysis. Students break an algorithm into steps and reason about its cost, and every exam includes a complexity question.
- CO4 to PO10 = 1. Students write a short justification for their choice, which involves some written communication. Communication isn’t taught or marked separately, though.
- CO5 to PO9 = 3. Students do the design project in teams of three, and peer assessment counts toward the marks.
- CO1 to PO9 = “-“. This outcome involves no group work.
Setting up a CO-PO mapping Excel sheet
Plenty of departments keep the matrix in a spreadsheet. A CO-PO mapping Excel sheet stays manageable when it includes:
- A tab for each course, with the course code, semester, faculty name and academic year at the top.
- The matrix, with POs and PSOs as columns and COs as rows, using only 3, 2, 1 or “-“.
- A justification column or a second table, with one line for each non-empty cell.
- An average row for each PO in the course, if your institution uses one.
- A program summary tab that brings every course’s matrix together so gaps stand out.
For attainment, a CO-PO attainment calculation Excel sheet usually adds tabs for marks per question, the CO tag on each question, survey results and the thresholds. Spreadsheets get fragile at this point. A single mistagged question or a column copied over from last year changes every number that follows.
CO-PO attainment
CO-PO attainment measures how far students actually got toward each course outcome, and then, through the matrix, toward each program outcome. Mapping sets out the plan, and attainment provides the evidence.
The evidence comes in two kinds:
- Direct methods rely on student work such as internal assessments, assignments, lab work, projects and the end-semester exam. Because each question carries a CO tag, you can read marks outcome by outcome.
- Indirect methods rely on perception, through course-exit surveys and, at program level, alumni, employer and graduate-exit surveys.
Each institution sets its own targets, thresholds and weights. The numbers in the example below follow one common pattern and are only there to illustrate it. Check your accreditation body’s current guidance and your institution’s approved method before using any of them.
How to calculate CO-PO attainment: a worked example
This uses an illustrative method and made-up data for the Data Structures course.
Step 1. Set a target per CO. For example, a student “attains” CO1 by scoring at least 60 percent of the marks on questions tagged CO1.
Step 2. Turn the share of students into a level. Here are example thresholds:
| Share of students reaching the target | Attainment level |
|---|---|
| 70 percent or more | 3 |
| 60 to 69 percent | 2 |
| 50 to 59 percent | 1 |
| Below 50 percent | 0 |
Step 3. Work out direct attainment. Take CO1. In internal assessments, 64 percent of students reached the target (level 2), and in the end-semester exam 71 percent did (level 3). Weighting internal and end-semester results equally, direct attainment for CO1 = (2 + 3) / 2 = 2.5.
Step 4. Add indirect attainment. Say the course-exit survey for CO1 gives level 3. With 80 percent weight on direct evidence and 20 percent on indirect, CO1 attainment = 0.8 x 2.5 + 0.2 x 3 = 2.6.
Doing the same for the other outcomes gives these example figures: CO1 = 2.6, CO2 = 2.2, CO3 = 3.0, CO4 = 1.7, CO5 = 2.4.
From CO attainment to PO attainment
One common way to get a course-level PO figure is a weighted average. Multiply each CO’s attainment by its mapping level for that PO, add the results and divide by the total of the mapping levels.
Here’s PO1, using the matrix above (CO1 = 3, CO2 = 2, CO3 = 3, CO4 = 1, CO5 = 1):
PO1 = (3 x 2.6 + 2 x 2.2 + 3 x 3.0 + 1 x 1.7 + 1 x 2.4) / (3 + 2 + 3 + 1 + 1)
= (7.8 + 4.4 + 9.0 + 1.7 + 2.4) / 10
= 25.3 / 10
= 2.53
Program-level PO attainment then combines the figures from every course that maps to PO1, often adding alumni and employer surveys as indirect evidence.
The weak point in this example is CO4 at 1.7. A closing-the-loop note for it might read: “Add two case-based problems on choosing data structures to the tutorials; add one CO4 question to each internal test.”
NBA CO-PO mapping: what reviewers usually look for
For NBA CO-PO mapping, the Self Assessment Report asks departments to present course outcomes, the CO-PO and CO-PSO matrices, and attainment along with the actions taken. You can expect questions like these:
- How do you justify this 3, and what is taught and assessed for it?
- Are the questions in this paper really tagged to the COs you claim?
- Does at least one course cover every PO at a high level?
- When an outcome fell short, what did you change, and did it work?
NBA’s formats change from cycle to cycle, so always work from the current SAR template and manual.
Common mistakes in CO-PO mapping
- Mapping everything to everything. A matrix packed with 3s is hard to defend.
- Vague COs. You can’t cleanly tag a question to “Understand sorting”.
- Tags added after the exam. When questions get tagged to COs only as the attainment sheet falls due, the tags rarely match the questions.
- Different methods in each department. The attainment figures then can’t be compared or rolled up.
- No closing the loop. Figures without a recorded action defeat the purpose of the exercise.
Most of these go away if you tag each lesson and question with its outcome at the time you write it.
Where AcademicOS and Proctorly Examination fit
AcademicOS starts from outcomes. Lessons, questions and rubrics map to course and program outcomes, so your evidence builds up as you teach.
Outcome mapping when the course is built. Studio, our ai course creator, drafts modules, lessons, activities and question banks from your syllabus and maps each item to course outcomes and Bloom’s levels. Faculty edit and approve every draft in an approval workflow before anything is published.
Questions that carry their CO tag into the exam. The Proctorly Examination module, our exam management system, keeps a question bank in which questions map to course and program outcomes and Bloom’s levels. It also has blueprints and AI-drafted questions that a moderator approves. Papers built from the bank keep their outcome tags, and those tags are the input every attainment method needs. Our question paper generator builds papers too.
What to confirm. Proctorly Examination includes accreditation analytics for outcome attainment, progression audit and accreditation evidence. Bring your institution’s own thresholds and weights to a demo and we’ll go through them with you. Outcome mapping is already built in.
Frequently asked questions
What is CO-PO mapping in simple terms?
It’s a table linking each course outcome to the program outcomes it supports. Course outcomes form the rows and program outcomes the columns, and each cell holds a level: 3 for high, 2 for medium, 1 for low or a dash for none. The table shows how every course contributes to what the program’s graduates should be able to do.
What does 1, 2 and 3 mean in CO-PO mapping?
These are correlation levels. A 3 means the course outcome develops the program outcome substantially and students are assessed on it. A 2 is a moderate contribution, and a 1 means the course outcome only touches the program outcome. A dash means there’s no link. Every non-empty cell needs a one-line justification based on what the course teaches and assesses.
How do you write a CO-PO mapping justification?
Say what is taught and how it’s assessed, for example: “Complexity analysis is problem analysis; every exam has a complexity question, so CO3 maps to PO2 at level 3.” If you can’t point to teaching and assessment for a cell, lower the level or leave the cell empty. Reviewers often read the justifications to check whether the levels are honest.
What is the difference between CO-PO mapping and CO-PO attainment?
Mapping is the plan, showing which course outcomes support which program outcomes and how strongly. Attainment is the evidence of how far students actually reached each course outcome, measured through tagged assessment and surveys and rolled up to program outcomes using the mapping levels. The mapping has to come first, because attainment calculations use its levels as weights.
Does AcademicOS calculate CO-PO attainment?
AcademicOS maps lessons, questions and rubrics to course and program outcomes, and Studio maps every item it drafts to course outcomes and Bloom’s levels. The Proctorly Examination question bank keeps the same outcome tags. We’ll confirm in a demo whether the platform calculates attainment using your own thresholds and weights. Outcome mapping is built in today.