FINAL REPORT - Higher Education Commission · 2017-01-16 · ii Quality Assurance & Accreditation (Organization, Mechanisms and Practice) (July, 2016) Consultant Prof. Dr. Riaz Hussain

i

FINAL REPORT

ii

Quality Assurance & Accreditation

(Organization, Mechanisms and Practice) (July, 2016)

Consultant

Prof. Dr. Riaz Hussain Qureshi (Pride of Performance)

House 24, Street 25, Korang Town, Islamabad, Pakistan

Tel: +92 515958183 Cell: +92300 5071063 E-mail: [email protected]

HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD TERTIARY EDUCATION SUPPORT PROGRAM (TESP)

ISLAMABAD

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. # Title Page #

List of Annexures I

Acronyms ii

Executive Summary iii

1. Introduction 1

1.1 HEC initiatives for Quality Assurance 1

2. Approach and Methodology 4

3. Implementation, value, impact and follow-up of institutional reviews

(including IPES)

6

3.1 Background 6

3.2 Methodology 6

3.3 Findings 7

3.3.1 Implementation 7

3.3.2 Value and Impact 10

3.3.3 Follow-up 15

3.4 Recommendations 16

4. Implementation, value, impact and follow-up of program reviews and

scope for improvement and increased better “buy-in” by faculty staff

18

4.1 Background 18

4.2 Methodology 18

4.3 Findings 18



4.3.3 Follow-up 21

4.3.4 Scope of Improvement 23

4.3.5 Better ‘Buy-in’ by faculty staff 23


5. Implementation, value, impact and follow-up of self- assessment reviews 25

5.1 Background 25

5.2 Methodology 25

5.3 Findings 26


5.3.2 Objectivity 27


5.3.4 Follow-up 28


6. Assessment of the efficiency and capacity of the Quality

Assurance Agency (QAA) and the Quality Enhancement Cells

(QECs) in performing their duties

30

6.1 Background 31

6.2 Methodology 38

iv

6.3 Findings 38


7. Evaluation of performance of the Accreditation Councils; 40

7.1 Background 40

7.2 Methodology 41

7.3 Findings 41


8. Evaluation of the accreditation systems and criteria and compliance with

decisions and comparison between treatment of private and public HEIs

(in coordination with study # 6)

44

8.1 Background 44

8.2 Methodology 45

8.3 Findings 45


9. Assessment of quality assurance systems as applied to

Affiliated Colleges and External Degree Programs (studies # 4 and 5)

47

9.1 Background 47

9.2 Methodology 47

9.3 Affiliated Colleges 47

9.3.1 Background 47

9.3.2 Findings 50

9.3.3 Recommendations 52

9.4 External Degree Programs 53

9.4.1 Background / Quality Assurance System 53

9.4.2 Findings 55

9.4.3 Recommendations 56

10. Assessment of the coordination between Quality Assurance and

Qualifications Framework.

58

10.1 Background 58

10.2 Methodology 63

10.3 Findings 63

10.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 64

11. General Conclusions and Recommendations 65

12. References 67

13. Response to the comments of the Reviewer 68

13.1 Comment 68

13.2 Response 68

13.3 Comment 68

13.4 Response 68

14. Annexures 71

i

LIST OF ANNEXURES

Annexure # Title Page #

I Questionnaire for QECs 64

II Institutional Performance Evaluation Standards (IPES) 81

III Questionnaire for PD (IPES) 87

IV Analysis of Data for Institutional Performance 92

V Questionnaire for PD (QECs) 103

VI Analysis of Data for Program Reviews 108

VII Recommendations of Program Review Assessment

Teams implemented by Islamia University, Bhawalpur

125

VIII Recommendations of Assessment Teams Implemented by KPK Agri.

University, Peshawar

130

IX Analysis of Data for SARs 133

X Questionnaire for HEC-Accreditation Councils 139

XI Questionnaire for GOP-Accreditation Councils 141

XII Questionnaire for Dir. QAA/PD (Accreditation Councils) 144

XIII Activities of Training Program for Evaluators by NAEAC 146

XIV Questionnaire filled by Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) 150

XV Analysis of Data for Accreditation Councils 156

XVI Check List used by HEC for Recognition of Newly Established

HEIs/DAIs

159

XVII Questionnaire for In Charge Private HEIs at HEC 161

XVIII Questionnaire for In charge External Degree Programs at HEC. 163

XIX Analysis of data for Affiliated Colleges and External Degree

Programs

ii

ACRONYMS

ABET American Board of Engineering and Technology

ACs Accreditation Councils

APQN Asia and the Pacific Quality Network

DAI Degree Awarding Institute

DSD Directorate of Staff Development

EDP

ENQA

External Degree Program

European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education

EQA External Quality Assurance

FGM Focus Group Meeting

FP Focal Person

HEC Higher Education Commission

HED

HE

Higher Education Department

Higher Education

HEI Higher Education Institution

INQAAHE International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education

IPES Institutional Performance Evaluation Standards

IPE Institutional Performance Evaluation

IQA Internal Quality Assurance

IUB Islamia University, Bhawalpur

MTDF Mid Term Development Framework

NQAC National Quality Assurance Committee

QA Quality Assurance

QAA Quality Assurance Agency, (HEC, Islamabad)

QAD Quality Assurance Division, (HEC, Islamabad)

QECs Quality Enhancement Cells

SARs Self-Assessment Reports

TPV Third Party Validation

UPR University Portfolio Report

VCs Vice Chancellors

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

After about 13 years of its establishment, the HEC has initiated 10 Studies under TESP for

evaluating the impact of its initiatives on improvement of Higher Education Institutions to

serve as engine of socio-economic development of the country. This Report of the Consultant

pertains to the ‘Quality Assurance and Accreditation’ initiative of the HEC and deals with the

study of impact of ‘organization, mechanisms and practice’ of QA system (IQA and EQA)

developed and implemented by the HEC for the HE sector. The Report focuses on 8 different

issues identified by the HEC that include evaluation of the system of Self–Assessment of

Academic Programs and Institutions, their external evaluation by relevant bodies, and the

capacity and working of QAA/QAD at HEC, QECs at HEIs, and Accreditation Councils to

achieve the targets.

Twenty universities including 5 Private sector universities that had gone through the process

of Institutional Performance Evaluation were selected for the Study. A detailed Questionnaire

was sent to QECs of these universities (19 responded) and separate purpose-designed

Questionnaires were sent to all PDs at HEC dealing with various aspects of the Study. Also,

Questionnaires were sent to all HEC- ACs and selected GOP- ACs. Meetings were held with

the relevant senior officers of the HEC, and VCs/ Directors of 2 universities and 3 sub-

campuses of universities where FGMs were held with faculty staff and students. The

Findings of the Study and the Recommendations based on the information gathered are as

under.

Findings

The present ‘half-baked’ QA system launched by HEC has done well in achieving initial

objectives of developing an IQA-EQA infrastructure through establishment of 162 QECs at

HEIs and 5 ACs by HEC.

The QA administrative set up at HEC i.e. QAA and QAD as well as QECs at HEIs are

seriously handicapped in terms of human and financial resources to work at the optimum

level.

The major impact of the QA initiatives is seen in terms of increasing awareness and quality

consciousness among administrative staff and faculty members, highlighting weaknesses of

HEIs and Academic Programs, improvement in documentation, teaching/research facilities,

general working of HEIs and development of a culture of self- assessment at HEIs.

The VCs/Rectors are unable to appreciate the real value of QA program while the QECs do

not enjoy the required level of ‘Respect’ in the university environment.”

Recommendations

A Panel of experts may be appointed to analyze the Findings and Recommendations of this

Study and suggest strategy and future course of action for making QA system more effective

by HEC in the future.

QAA, QAD and QECs may be strengthened adequately on priority, to enable them to achieve

targets of QA, effectively.

iv

Special Awareness programs may be initiated for students to make them conscious about the

quality of education being imparted to them and empower them to ensure that they get high

quality education.

The issue of quality of education of External students, Private students, and students of

Affiliated Colleges (also students at Sub-Campuses) should be given immediate attention by

HEC.

Special attention should be given to the practical training of undergraduates through

provision of appropriate lab. Facilities’

HEC should strengthen awareness programs for all stakeholders and expand Training

Programs for HEC and QEC personnel as well as for Reviewers for evaluation of HEIs and

Academic Programs.

A holistic approach of QA at the HEI level needs to be followed. QEC office needs to be

strengthened and made responsible for all QA activities including awareness campaigns,

documentation, Institutional Review, Program Reviews, liaison with ACs, and International

bodies concerned with QA system of HEI.

v

1. INTRODUCTION

The Higher Education Commission of Pakistan has given very high importance and serious

attention to the issue of Quality in the higher education sector since after its establishment,

and identified it as one of the three major issues i.e., Access, Quality and Relevance to be

addressed in the first Mid Term Development Framework (MTDF I) 2005-10. Faculty

Development and Infrastructure Development were given the top priority for improvement in

Quality of HE. Again in MTDF II (2010-15), the same three aspects were at the center of the

strategy for development of HE Institutions as engine of socio-economic development in

Pakistan.

The World Bank have adopted the term ‘Tertiary Education’ to emphasize inclusion of non-

university Institutions in the HE sector. However, only universities and allied Institutions

have been focused in this study by the Consultant.

Mr. Jamil Salmi, the Education Sector Manager of the World Bank, in his letter to

participants of the Seminar on ‘Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education’ held in Sevres,

France (2006) emphasized to focus discussion on three principles i.e. the rigor and scope of

quality assurance practice, the integrity of the quality assurance process, and acceptance of

the results by stakeholders. It was emphasized in the Seminar that the cost of doing nothing

to inform the public about quality in tertiary education can be high.

Rana and Reid (2009) while proposing a Model of Quality Assurance in Pakistan emphasized

that Organizational culture played crucial role in the successful implementation of any

quality assurance strategy, and the typical culture in educational institutions of the world

including Pakistan was bureaucratic in nature, with a basic strategy of conflict rather than

collaboration. According to Reid (2009), another problem was that some of the Higher

Education system in Pakistan was built on the tradition of British system from the 19th

Century, with its emphasis on preparation for the public services, while Pakistan now needed

more emphasis on the science and technological area, as well as applied sciences,

entrepreneurship and business skills. However, he admitted the fact that ‘students who

graduated from the Pakistan education system did routinely well (and often excelled) in

educational and professional environments abroad(also see Boston Report, 2002).

From the International perspective, there is requirement of developing agreed Quality

Standards for cross border education, and many international networks including INQAAHE,

APQN and ENQA were established in different regions of the world to achieve this

objective. The Brisbane Communique led by Australian government developed a set of

quality assurance principles for internal and external quality assurance in early 2008, which

were discussed in Chiba, Japan before the APQN 2008 AGM and Conference, and were

further refined. It was agreed that these principles need to be further revised to fit the context

of great diversity in the Asia-Pacific. These Higher Education Quality Assurance Principles

for the Asia – Pacific Region are called ‘Chiba Principles’. However, ultimately, such

standards are expected to have a national context as well for implementation.

1.1 HEC Initiatives for Quality Assurance

Soon after its establishment, HEC announced a National Quality Assurance Committee

(NQAC or QAC) to oversee the Quality Assurance program of HEC, and Vice Chancellors

of various universities were nominated as its members. At HEC, the Quality Assurance and

Learning Innovation (QA&LI) Division headed by Adviser was responsible for the QA

program. The main focus was on sensitizing and awareness programs for HEIs, development

of Standards and Criteria and implementation of these Criteria in HEIs.

Later on, Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) headed by a Managing Director was set up by

HEC to act as an autonomous body for monitoring implementation of Quality Standards by

HEIs, primarily through establishment of Accreditation Councils (ACs).

HEC encouraged and ensured establishment of a Quality Enhancement Cell (QEC) in each

HEI as an instrument for Internal Quality Assurance (IQA).

Unfortunately, it appears that, in spite of great efforts made by HEC, the Quality Assurance

program of the HE sector did not succeed fully, primarily because of extremely low level of

financial and human resource allocations by HEC and HEIs, lack of proper training

programs, and more so, because of poor realization of the real value of this factor by

VCs/Rectors for improving quality of graduates. It needs to be clearly understood that

investment in QA programs by HEIs is expected to have high rate of return compared with

all other investments. It must be kept in mind that HEC has a strong urge to adopt

international best practices such as using Institutional Performance Evaluation Standards

(IPES) and is trying to accomplish/initiate such programs for a quick start of ‘Quality

Culture’ in the HEIs. HEC has been successful in launching many programs but without

creating concomitant human and financial resources required for the relevant activities which

left gaps in the accomplishment of targets set for the purpose. Nevertheless, after a lapse of

one decade after initiation of the QA programs, HEC has decided to initiate Review Process

to highlight gaps in implementation of these initiatives.

With the above given background in view, the HEC has initiated ten different studies

including this study on ‘Quality Assurance and Accreditation (Organization, Mechanisms

and Practice) which is to be conducted by the Author (Consultant for Study # 7). The overall

objectives of this particular study are:

• to assess the functionality and efficiency of the institutions and mechanisms to

assure quality of teaching and learning in existing HEIs and vet the quality of new

programs and HEIs, and

• to appraise their capacity to deliver the services in a context of a growing and more

diversified tertiary education sector.

For this study the agreement between HEC and the Consultant (Author of this Report) was

signed on 10th March, 2016 and the Inception Report was submitted on 16th March, 2016.

This study has the following 8 focus areas.

(I) Implementation, value, impact and follow-up of institutional reviews (including

IPES);

(II) Implementation, value, impact and follow-up of program reviews and scope for

improvement and increased better “buy-in” by faculty staff;

(III) Implementation, value, impact and follow-up of self-assessment reviews;

(IV) Assessment of the efficiency and capacity of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

and the Quality Enhancement Cells (QECs) in performing their duties;

V) Evaluation of performance of the Accreditation Councils;

(VI) Evaluation of the accreditation systems and criteria and compliance with decisions

and comparison between treatment of private and public HEIs (in coordination with

study # 6);

(VII) Assessment of quality assurance systems as applied to Affiliated Colleges and

External Degree Programs (studies #4and 5)

(VIII) Assessment of the coordination between Quality Assurance and Qualifications

Framework.

The four major components of this study i.e. (i) – (iv) are intimately interlinked but, to make

the Report reader-friendly, each of the focus areas has been dealt with separately by giving a

short Background to highlight the issue, followed by Methodology, Findings, and

Recommendations. At the end, general Conclusions and Recommendations are given.

2. APPROACH AND METHODOLODY

As four out of the eight focus areas of the study were related to IPES and QECs, 20

universities were selected out of the 36 universities for which Institutional Performance

Evaluation (IPE) Process as well as QEC review had already been completed by the HEC.

Unfortunately, The Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad did not participate in the study. Ten

of the selected universities had also gone through the Third Party Validation (TPV) by the

Consultant Dr SM Qureshi under TESP. For selection of the remaining 10 universities,

preference was given to the private HEIs which were 5 in number. For the remaining 5

universities, IPE Review through on-site evaluation by peers, Review of QECs by HEC, and

Program Reviews had been completed already. The list of the universities selected for this

study is given as follows.

LIST OF UNIVERSITIES

4 STANDARDS

1 Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur

2 Iqra University,Karachi

6 STANDARDS

3 Hamdard University, Karachi

8 STANDARDS

4 Islamia University, Bahawalpur

5 COMSATS Institute Of Information Technology ,Islamabad

6 KPK Agri. University, Peshawar

7 Dow University Of Health Sciences, Karachi

8 Mehran University Of Engineering & Technology, Jamshoro

9 University of Engineering & Technology, Peshawar

10 Lahore College of Women University, Lahore

11 SBK Women University, Quetta

12 The University Of A.J. & K., Muzaffarabad

11 STANDARDS

13 University Of Balochistan , Quetta

14 SZABIST, Karachi

15 PMAS Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi

16 Institute of Space Technology, Islamabad

17 Indus University, Karachi

18 Government College University, Lahore

19 Government College University, Faisalabad

To find answer to various aspects of the 8 focus areas, a single comprehensive Questionnaire

was developed based on review of the relevant literature, personal experience, meetings with

the HEC staff and nature of the study (Annex I). The Questionnaire included Qualitative as

well as Quantitative parameters. The Questionnaires were sent to the Directors of QECs of

the twenty universities with copy to the respective VCs/Rectors with the request to get it

filled by the Dir. QEC and, separately, by a senior faculty member (non QEC person), and

return the filled in Questionnaire within 10 days. Response was finally received from 19 out

of the 20 universities. The information received from HEIs was analyzed using Microsoft

EXCEL (2013).

In addition, site visits were made to two universities i.e. GCUF, Faisalabad and UET, Taxila,

and 3 Campuses i.e. Ripha University Campus, Faisalabad, UET, Lahore Campus,

Faisalabad and SZABIST Campus, Islamabad where Focused Group Meetings (FGMs) were

held with faculty members and students as well as VC / Director of the Campus. It may be

pointed out that 67 public sector and 30 private universities have established their Campuses

which are recognized by HEC, in addition to the 163 Campuses which are not recognized by

the HEC. These Campuses are ignored in terms of implementation of any formal Quality

Assurance system and are not part of any Review conducted by the HEC.

Separate Questionnaires were developed for gathering information from the respective

Project Directors/In-charges at HEC dealing with various focus areas included in this study,

as well as for the relevant Accreditation Councils. Contact was also established with various

Officers of the HEC relevant to the study who provided full support in providing information

for the study. Findings of the study are given and Recommendations have been formulated

on the basis of the data collected and site visits. The Component-wise (issues 1-8) Report is

given in the following Sections.

3. MPLEMENTATION, VALUE, IMPACT AND FOLLOW-UP OF

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWS (INCLUDING IPES)

3.1 Background

The Program Reviews conducted by QECs of universities highlighted the need for

Institutional Reviews for which HEC prepared a set of Standards called ‘Institutional

Performance Evaluation Standards (IPES) (Annex. II), mostly using two basic sources i.e 1)

New England Standards for Accreditation Commission on Institutions of Higher Education,

New England Association of Schools and Colleges (2005), and 2) Eligibility Requirements

and Standards followed by Middle States Commission on Higher Education (2002) i.e.

Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, Middle States Commission on Higher

Education (2002).

The Higher Education Commission of Pakistan prepared a Manual (Batool et. el., 2010) for

guidance in adoption of these Standards (the Author of this Report is also a co-author of this

Manual). Due to issues of awareness, training facilities and lack of trained staff both at HEC

and HEIs, it was decided to implement these Standards in a phased manner in selected HEIs.

Initially, only 4 Standards (1-4) were implemented followed by 6,8 and 11 standards in

selected HEIs as given in Section 2. Later on, a Review Process was initiated by HEC to

assess the performance of 36 universities against these Standards. The status of the Review

of 15 HEIs was then got validated through a Third Party Validation (TPV) conducted by Dr

Shamsuddin Qureshi under TESP. As a part of the current study, the HEC desires to have

status report on the Review conducted by HEC and to highlight the issues of the

Implementation Process, Value, Impact and the progress in Follow-up on the adoption of

IPES and IPE Process.

At this stage, it may be useful to add the following clarification from my own point of view.

The word Performance used in the Institutional Performance Standards in the context of the

present study is rather confusing, if not misleading, as these are the minimum requirements to

be fulfilled by Institutions to make them eligible for Accreditation rather than indicators of

‘Performance’. However, the PD (IPES) at HEC did not agree with the contention of the

Author and felt that these are actually the standards for performance evaluation. This aspect

needs to be deliberated by experts at the HEC level and, as planned earlier, more Standards

need to be included for Institutional Performance Evaluation.

3.2 Methodology

The Institutions included in the study and the Questionnaire used were the same as

mentioned under the title ‘Approach and Methodology (Section 2). In addition to the QECs,

views of the PD (IPES) at HEC, Mr. Muhammad Shoaib were also obtained through another

Questionnaire especially prepared for this purpose (Annex. III). A few UPRs and Review

Reports prepared by the Review Panels were also studied. The views of the Consultant

(TPV), Dr. SM Qureshi given in his Report on Third Party Validation of HEIs assessed

against Institutional Performance Standards, were also given due consideration. The fact that

the IPE Reviews of many Institutions had been undertaken recently and sufficient time had

not elapsed to properly assess the impact of the Institutional Review, while 3-4 universities

did not receive the Review Reports, has also been kept in view for preparing this Report.

The data obtained from 19 universities and the information gathered from other sources

including the FGMs have been utilized to formulate Findings and Recommendations as given

below.

3.3 Findings

3.3.1 Implementation

The IPES were communicated to all HEIs for adoption in phases as mentioned under

Methodology. The effectiveness of implementation of the IPES is the central point of this

part of the study.

It is felt that awareness regarding HEC initiatives among various stakeholders at HEIs i.e.

administration, faculty members and students is a prerequisite and has been a major

constraint in the implementation of the programs such as IPES. Many of the stakeholders are

familiar only with the nomenclature rather than full details, its value, requirements and

implications of implementation. Findings about IPES implementation are based on the data

provided by HEIs, PD (IPES), FGMs and previous findings of the Consultant (TPV).

The data regarding awareness vary highly among the universities and also between QECs and

faculty members (Annex. IV). Overall, 50% of the QECs and Faculty members were of the

view that between 60 – 90 % of the faculty members were aware of the IPES and the Review

Process. About 40% of the respondents felt that awareness level of the students was less than

30%, while 28% of the QECs and 40% of the faculty staff felt that awareness level of the

Admin. Staff was between 61-90%. On the other hand, FGMs with faculty staff and students

did not endorse the data as only one third of the faculty members and less than 10% of

students were aware of IPES, while less than 10% of teachers and almost none of the

students in Campuses were aware of IPES. Moreover, it has strongly emerged during the

FGMs that the faculty, students and administration of HEIs where Review Process was not

started were completely ignorant about the IPES.

The PD (IPES) HEC informed that briefing sessions on implementation of IPES were given

in VCs’ Meetings at HEC and the Directors of QECs who attended the trainings arranged by

QAA were also given briefing on IPES to increase the awareness level. No formal training to

Focal Persons (FPs) was given by HEC except for one training in 2012 when 10 FPs were

formally briefed by HEC. This level of awareness about IPES is far from being satisfactory

and deserves serious attention of HEC and HEIs. It needs to be clearly understood that

students are the main beneficiaries of IPES and the Review Process and must be focus of

awareness campaigns in the future.

The information gathered indicated some weaknesses in the IPES and some faculty members

emphasized on addition of more standards such as Social Corporate Responsibility (SCR)

and a separate standard for Research and Development. Some of the suggestions given by

faculty members such as including Student Facilities and Admission Policy etc.(also see

Report of the Consultant TPV) are already covered in existing IPES.

The suggestion that IPES with a different set of questions developed for specialized HEIs e.g.

Medical, Engineering, Linguistics etc. is strongly endorsed by the Author. In some cases,

meanings of some questions were difficult to understand and interpret. Therefore, such

questions need to be rephrased for easy understanding by the Audience the PD (IPES) of

QAA informed that the most difficult standard to implement was “Organization and

Governance”. The QAA must revise IPES and develop a more detailed Manual for

evaluation of Institutions and revise the questions for better understanding of the audience

and it should be made user friendly in all respects.

The information provided by HEIs shows that most of the Focal Persons for IPES Review

were actually the Dir. / In-charge, QECs, who were appointed on the basis of Relevance to

job/relevant experience (Annex. IV).

The issue of appointment of FPs to facilitate conduct of Institutional Performance Review

has been discussed in detail by the Consultant (TPV) in paragraph 43 of Section 3.3.1 of his

Report. In my view, at the Institution level, a holistic approach needs to be taken for Quality

Assurance arrangements (Implementation of IPES, Program Reviews, dealing with

Accreditation Councils, Liaison with HEC and other national/ international agencies etc.)

under the leadership of a single person who is Incharge of the Quality Enhancement Cell.

The Consultant (TPV) has argued that this nomenclature may be changed to reflect added

responsibilities (and added facilities). The Consultant (TPV) had recommended to rename the

QEC as Office of the Quality Assurance or Office of the Quality Assurance and

Accreditation under a Director General or a Dean. However, the use of the nomenclature of

Dean needs statutory provision. In my view, to give QA system in university the desired

level of emphasis and visibility, this office needs to be headed by a Provost after making

statutory provision.

There is a serious issue of lack of capacity at the QAA and at HEIs to implement IPES and

other Quality Assurance initiatives in HEIs. Both QAA and QECs are seriously handicapped

in terms of human and financial resources (see later in the relevant Section of the Report)

which need immediate attention of the concerned authorities.

The HEC very rightly decided to appoint In-charge QECs having training and international

exposure as members of the Review Panel who were briefed by QAA. Some suggestions

have been given in response to the Questionnaire that senior faculty members, particularly

those having experience relevant to the nature of the HEI, may be included in the Panel.

During the TPV it has emerged that Review Panel from the neighboring Institutions were

also appointed which is against the spirit of the Review.

As per SOPs, the Review Panel was expected to stay at the HEI for 3 days but, in many

cases, it stayed for only two days which did not allow a detailed scrutiny and visits to various

facilities. Some HEIs in response to the Questionnaire have pointed fingers on the quality of

the Review Report in terms of objectivity and considered it more of a ‘fault finding’ exercise

rather than an objective assessment. However, the Consultant (TPV) has verified that IPES

were generally recorded correctly.

Also, the findings of the report were conveyed very late to the institutions e.g. Inst. of Space

Technology, Islamabad, SZABIST, Karachi and PMAS Arid Agri. University, Rawalpindi

did not receive the Reports even after about two years after the Review, giving the

impression that Review had no purpose.

Nevertheless, the respondents overwhelmingly felt that the review was highly useful in

sensitizing and developing awareness about the quality issues among the Administration and

faculty members, highlighting the weaknesses of the Institution, documentation of facts, and

led to improvement in teaching and research of the Institution (Annex. IV).

Lack of uniformity and documentation and different meanings for the same question were

observed during TPV exercise (see Paragraph 33 of the Report). This issue can be addressed

by training of the concerned staff and preparing an instruction Manual for this purpose. Most

of the HEIs considered proper documentation as one of the most important benefits of the

Review Process (Annex. IV). Data from HEIs showed that insufficient time was given for the

preparation of documents. Keeping the capacity of QECs and facilities of HEIs in view, at

least 2-3 months may be allocated for the preparation of documents/ UPR.

Most of the respondents i.e. 56% of the QECs and 46% of the faculty members were of the

view that cycle of review should be after every 3 years while 38% QECs and 33% faculty

members thought that it should be after every 2 years (Annex. IV).

Training/capacity building and documentation are found to be the weakest links in the

implementation of IPES. The QAA may train Master Trainers for preparing UPR regarding

IPES and IPE Process in extensive training sessions to be conducted at HEC. This could also

become a part of the Faculty Development Program for improving Pedagogical skills. The

Master Trainers may then train the faculty at the institution level. A separate Training

program may be developed for Reviewers which may become part of the training of QEC

personnel by QAA/ QAD.

The documentation system of universities was weak and the Administration of UET, Taxila

emphasized that CMS needs to be set up in universities to improve documentation. It also

emerged that faculty members were very hesitant to spare time for documentation and

considered it a wasteful exercise and an undue pressure on them. They also felt that not

enough time was given to them before the Review to prepare UPR. However, the data given

in Annex. IV show that 100% of the respondents (both QECs and faculty members) felt that

the Reviews greatly improved the quality of UPRs.

The data provided by QECs also show that the implementations of the Recommendations of

Review were properly notified for implementation (Annex. IV)

Data given in Annex. IV show that at least 50% of the faculty members and 57% of the

QECs considered infrastructure as the main constraint in implementation of the

recommendations while 50% 0f the faculty members and 43% of the QECs thought conflict

with the policies of the institution were the major cause of not implementing the

recommendations.

In spite of various shortcomings and weaknesses, IPE Process has been highly valued and

appreciated by the HEIs as is also indicated in the following Section on Value and Impact.

During the FGMs and discussion with VCs the following major concerns were shown

relevant to the quality of education in HEIs:

The quality of faculty did not meet the expectations, particularly in terms of

dedication, teaching skills and ethical standards.

The quality of students admitted was much below the standards, particularly in the

Engineering Institutions.

The enrollment in different disciplines was increased enormously without caring for

the availability of minimum facilities required.

The curriculum did not match the modern trends and, in some cases, courses offered

in different semesters were “out of phase” with one another, particularly in some

medical and engineering subjects,

Undergraduate Labs were poorly equipped which badly affected the practical training

of undergraduates,

The examination system in the Semester system was defective and had many

loopholes.

In response to the Review Panel Reports, all the universities have given their compliance

reports showing that many of the recommendations of the Review Panels have been

implemented while the others are under process. I feel that the response of the HEIs has been

astonishingly good in terms of implementation. The implementation status of IUB is

appended as Annex V. It is obvious that the recommendations which required no or small

expenditures have already been implemented while the recommendations requiring heavy

financial investment are under consideration. Some HEIs and the Consultant (TPV) have

recommended that HEC may set aside separate budget for implementation of the

recommendations of the Review Panels.

Each HEI was requested to give three most important recommendations. It does not seem

appropriate to repeat all the recommendations here but the most significant of these

recommendations are as follows:

Director QEC should be considered a statutory post like Registrar, Controller of

Exams. etc.

Capacity building of HEIs may be done.

Regular monitoring and follow up of the program should be done. This

recommendation was given by most of the HEIs.

Awareness among faculty may be increased.

There should be timely communication of recommendations of the Review Panel.

This was the 2nd most important Recommendation of HEIs.

The QEC may be empowered and strengthened.

The Review Panel should be well trained.

The HEC may devise a simple single unified system of QA in HEIs.

The recommendations of the Review Panel may be shared with the stakeholders

before finalization.

IPES should be in line with standards/criteria of Accreditation Councils.

Review should be more of performance evaluation rather than review of IPR Process.

3.3.2 Value and Impact

A direct question was asked from the QECs and faculty staff about their perception of value

of the IPES Review. The reply was overwhelmingly in favor of the Review. According to

62% of the QECs the Review was “ Highly Valuable” and the remaining 38% thought that it

was Valuable, while the percentage of the faculty members who considered it ‘Valuable’ and

‘Highly Valuable’ was 50% in each case., while not a single respondent thought it had no

value (Annex. IV). In most cases, this perception was developed on the basis of personal

experience and discussion with colleagues as is shown in Annex. IV.

As evident from Annex IV, a big majority of the QECs and faculty members thought that

Review Panels’ recommendations were most helpful in the improvement of documentation,

followed by Administrative aspects and Research aspects in that order.

Almost 75% of the QECs and faculty members were satisfied with the outcome of the

Review (Annex. IV).

Many Universities had developed their Mission Statement, Vision Statement and

Documentation system after the recommendations of the Review Panel.

Faculty members of most of the universities prepared Course Files and gave Course

Outcomes after the Review.

In 100% of the cases, the respondents opined that quality of the UPRs improved due to the

Review (Annex. IV).

An overwhelming response of the QECs and faculty members i.e. 94% and 100%,

respectively, was that the Review process improved ranking of the university (Annex. IV),

and 57% of the respondents from QECs and 100% of faculty staff agreed that Review

improved general working of the university (Annex. IV).

Some of the specific examples of the positive impact of the Review Process are as under:

(i) SBK Univ., Quetta felt that the Review gave many innovative ideas to the university

and recommendations of the Panel were shared with HoDs in regular meetings.

(ii) KPK Agri. Univ. Peshawar informed that following recommendations of the Panel

have been implemented/are under process:

• Mission Statement has been reviewed.

• Revised Statutes have been submitted to the Chancellor.

• QEC has developed new website.

• Automation of the library is in progress.

(iii) The Indus Univ. Karachi implemented the following recommendations after the Exit

Visit of the Review Panel(The Review Report was not received):

• Prospectus of the University have been prepared.

• CPD/Faculty Development Plan has been prepared.

• Lab Manual having safety precautions are placed in the lab.

• QEC has increased the number of Workshops/Seminars.

(iv) PMAS Arid Agri. Univ. Rawalpindi informed that Review helped in improving

various procedures, documentation and overall educational system.

(v) GCU, Lahore informed that following improvements took place as a result of the

Review:

• Deans have been appointed.

• On line feedback mechanism is in progress.

• Dir. QEC has been granted non-voting member status in Univ. statutory

bodies/committees.

• Mid-term exams are again part of the semester system.

• Some posts of faculty in depts. have been filled.

• Curricula are revised.

Implementation status of the Recommendations of the Review Panel by IUB asgiven is

follows:

1. Mission Statement and Goals

Sr.# Recommendations Action by / Responsibility

Status

1.1

The university should consider reviewing its

mission statement to make it more specific; while

carrying out this activity, the university may take on

board all the stakeholders.

Deans Committee

Registrar

Under Process

2. Planning and Evaluation

2.1

There is a need to develop SOPs for integration of

QA reports into future planning of the University.

The liaison between QEC and Planning &

Development department office may be extended

and defined to integrate the QEC’s

recommendations.

Director, QEC

Director, P&D

Treasurer

Under Process

3. Organization and Governance

3.1

The university should look into this matter, as per

the university’s act assistant professor cannot chair

a department and this should be followed.

Registrar office

Vice-Chancellor

Implemented

4. Faculty

4.1

In semester system the grading lies on the

integrity of the examiner, it is therefore proposed

that newly inducted faculty members should be

trained for examination marking to avoid

inflation of examination grading and create

harmony in examination marking system.

Director, QEC

Implemented

4.2

It is recommended that efforts may be made to

induct senior faculty so that each department be

headed by a full professor and sufficient number of

associate and assistant professors are available in

the departments for provision of quality

education and mentoring to the junior/fresh faculty.

Registrar office

Implemented

5. Students

5.1

The university may consider designing a well

maintained students’ handbook, which should be

circulated to all enrolled students. Also various

medium of communication should be used to

enhance the awareness of students regarding

rules & regulations and other necessary

information.

DSA

Registrar office

Implemented

5.2

The university should take appropriate steps to

eliminate unnecessary delays in conduction of

Ph.D. programs activities.

Director Advance

Studies &

Research Board

Implemented

6. Institutional Resources

6.1

The university may consider maintaining its

website in more effective manner; the Website

should be updated, in all respects. Director IT

Implemented

6.2 The university may consider enhancing the

availability of journals.

Chief Librarian

All Deans

All Chairmen/

HODs

Under Process

6.3

The university may consider providing dedicated

sitting spaces for graduate students for conducting

their research related activities.

All HODs

Principal Officer,

EC & SM

Partially

Implemented

7.Academic Programs and Curricula

7.1

It is suggested that all updated curricula may be

maintained properly by a specific Officer /official

and record should be easily traceable. The revision

of curricula should be done as per the

recommendation of HEC, i.e. at least after every 3

years.

Registrar office

All Chairmen / HODs

Partially

Implemented

7.2

It may be helpful if revision process is

simplified so that revision in curricula is

encouraged.

All Chairmen/

HODs

Registrar office

7.3

The university may identify some courses

having specific mode of knowledge transfer and

then method of delivery may devised accordingly. All Chairmen /

HODs

8. Assessment & Quality Assurance

8.1 The budget provision of the following QA activities

may be extended for QEC;

Implemented

For organization of Capacity Building workshops. Treasurer

Director QEC

For organization of Orientation Sessions on Quality

Assurance.

For participation in Conference and attending of

meetings on QA matters at national and

international level.

For Acquiring Memberships of QA bodies.

For Training and Development of QEC officials.

8.2

There is a need to develop SOPs for integration of

QA reports into future planning of the University.

The liaison between QEC and Planning &

Development department office may be extended

and defined to integrate the QEC’s

recommendations.

Director, QEC Director,

P&D

Partially

implemented

8.3

Regarding Graduating Students

Survey, bench marks are required to be

established indicating the excellent, satisfactory and

week areas for improvement for the guidance of the

respective departments.

Director, QEC Partially

Implemented

8.4

The Employer survey is third party evaluation of

the graduating student who are employed and it

is one of the best way to judge the quality of

education. Therefore, university should take

appropriate steps to conduct Employer survey.

Director, Alumni

Partially

Implemented

8.5

The frequency of orientation sessions on QEC

working should be extended

to the Students at all level as well, along with the

faculty members. Moreover training of young

faculty members on teaching and research

methodology may be executed by the QEC.

Director, QEC Implemented

8.6

There should be SOPs to check the M.Phil. / Ph.D.

thesis by the Plagiarism committee/ Director,

Research/QEC to avoid Self-checking of Plagiarism

which creates doubt on the credibility of the

originality of the work.

Director, QEC

Director Research

All Chairmen/

HODs

Under process

3.3.3 Follow-Up

Most of the recommendations of the Review Panel are being implemented by the HEIs as they

find the recommendations made by the Panel in the interest of the university. However, follow-

up mechanism needs more attention as has also been indicated by many HEIs in their

comments as well as much delayed reporting by the Panel e.g., in some cases, the

Findings/Recommendations have not been communicated to the HEIs even after 2 years since

the Review was conducted. The capacity of the QAD at HEC for follow-up seems limited.

HEIs are undecided/confused about the responsibility of follow-up on the Recommendations of

the Review Panel at the institution level. For example, when asked that who was responsible

for the follow-up at the Institution level, 15 QECs and 6 faculty members responded and many

of them named two offices responsible for the follow-up. The data given in Annex. IV show

that 73% QECs and 50% of the faculty staff thought that QEC had this responsibility, while

53% of QECs (some had mentioned both Offices) and 50% of the faculty thought that

Registrar’s office was responsible for the follow-up. Nevertheless, each university had a

follow-up program on the Recommendations of the Panel. The recommendations of the Panel

were notified as is informed by 92% of the QECs (Annex. IV). Detailed plan of follow-up

being implemented by the Indus University, Karachi is shown in the following Flow Diagram.

On the whole; it can be concluded that follow–up process on the recommendations of the

Panel was reasonable, although some of the respondents thought follow-up should be carried

out more vigorously by the HEC.

3.4 Recommendations

The Institutional Performance Evaluation Processes has been highly appreciated by the HEIs

on many accounts, especially in terms of sensitizing/ creation of awareness, and

improvement in documentation and improvement in teaching /research and, therefore, should

be continued and its scope expanded to include all remaining HEIs and their Campuses.

A holistic approach for IQA and EQA should be developed to deal with all aspects of Quality

Assurance at the Institution level. The best office to address the Quality issues will be the

QEC which can be given the responsibility of implementation of IPES, Program evaluation,

accreditation by Accreditation Councils, liaison with QAA and international Networks of

QA, Awareness and Training programs at the university and all other aspects of QA. This

Office needs to be strengthened in terms of human and financial resources and should be

headed by a very senior officer e.g. a Provost.

A very strong Awareness and Training program needs to be followed at the Institution level

for the Administration, faculty staff, and particularly for the students who are the main

stakeholders in the QA process and are sufferers in case poor quality education is offered by

the university. In my view 100% of the students need to be made aware of the Quality issues

Recommendations

University Prospectus

CPD for Faculty &

Students

Lab Manual

PhD review

Faculty /Student

handbook

Reporting

Authority

Registrar

Responsible

Person Dean&

Chairpersons

Responsible

Person

Director

Responsible

Person

Chairpersons

Responsible

Body

QEC

Time

frame

Minimum

:

2 Months

through formal discussion programs which will then generate lot of internal pressure on the

Institution to adhere to the high quality standards.

QAA may improve IPES in consultation with HEIs to include additional Standards such as

Social Corporate Responsibility, and address issues highlighted by the HEIs, e.g. the issue of

the HEIs engaged in professional education in Medicines, Engineering, and Languages etc.

The documentation system of HEIs must be improved through training and possibly by

provision of CMS. The HEIs should be allowed a period of 3 months to complete

documentation and prepare UPR.

QAA should ensure that Findings/ Recommendations of the Review Panel are conveyed to

the university in writing within one month of the visit and the follow-up program should be

substantially strengthened.

The cycle of the Review should be 3 years.

The capacity of QAA/QAD at HEC and QECs at HEIs should be substantially enhanced to

cope with the workload.

The recommendations of HEIs in respect of implementation of IPES as given in the

preceding Section should be given due attention.

The Manual of IPES should be revised and Training Manuals for FPs, Members of Review

Panels and implementation of IPES should be developed by QAA/QAD at HEC.

The HEIs may divide the Recommendations of the Review Panel in two separate sets i.e., 1)

those Recommendations which do not require extra funding such as preparation of Mission

statement, Vision Statement, Course Files with Course Outcomes, Academic Calendar, and

holding regular meetings of the Statutory Bodies etc., and 2) those Recommendations which

require large amount of funding such as provision of lab, lecture room, library and transport

facilities, and construction projects etc. The HEIs may develop their strategy for

implementing the Recommendations accordingly.

4. IMLEMENTATION, VALUE, IMPACT AND FOLLOW-UP OF PROGRAM

REVIEWS AND SCOPE FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND INCREASED

‘BUY-IN’ BY FACULTY STAFF

4.1 Background

The number of Academic Programs run by a university is usually quite large, particularly in

General Public sector universities, which requires an adequate mechanism of Quality

Assurance. The idea of handing over the ownership of Quality Assurance to HEIs was

conceived/developed at HEC by the Author and QAA/QAD at the HEC addressed this issue

through establishment of Quality Enhancement Cells at HEIs as an Internal Quality

Assurance (IQA) mechanism. A Manual for Self-Assessment of Programs (Raouf, 2006) was

also prepared by the HEC for guidance of the QECs. Under this mechanism, each program is

expected to be reviewed periodically under the umbrella of QECs who have completed

Review of a large number of programs in each university by now and prepared the Review

Reports. However, Program Reviews are still facing many difficulties as indicated by the PD

(QECs) at HEC. QAA has got established QECs in 162 HEIs and assessed status of 110

QECs through a scoring system based on 3 parameters i.e. establishment, incorporation of

program self-assessment mechanism and empowerment.

In addition to the IQA-EQA mechanism adopted by QECs, an EQA mechanism through

Accreditation Councils established by Govt. of Pakistan and HEC is also in vogue as

elaborated in the Section 7 ‘Evaluation of Performance of the Accreditation Councils’.

However, their scope is limited to only 14 main disciplines of education i.e. Medical and

Dentistry, Engineering, Veterinary Sci., Law, Nursing, Architecture and Town Planning,

Pharmacy, Homeopathy, ‘Tibb’, Agriculture, Business Education, Computing Education

Teachers’ Education and National Technology Council..

Through this component of the study # 7, the status of the Programs Reviews conducted by

QECs has been assessed and various issues related with this program have been highlighted.

Based on the data collected from QECs, input given by the PD (QECs) and review of some

SARs and Review Reports, Findings and Recommendations are given in the ensuing

Sections.

4.2 Methodology

The methodology used for this component in terms of selection of QECs and preparation of

Questionnaire was the same a used for IPES Review given under the ‘Approach and

Methodology’ and ‘Methodology’ given in Section 2. However, a separate Questionnaire

was developed to get input from the PD (QECs) (Annex V.). Also, the Review Reports of the

QECs were consulted and the matter was discussed in great detail in the FGMs at selected

universities. Findings and Recommendations given here are based on the analysis of the data

gathered for this purpose.

4.3 Findings


The achievements of the QAA (and QECs) are fantastic as it has succeeded in establishing

QECs in 162 HEIs which, in turn, have evaluated a large number of Programs in their

respective Institutions. The QAA has been able to conduct Review of the QECs and also

verified the information provided in SARs for selected QECs through its Review Teams (see

Quality Assurance Agency Annual Progress Report, 2013-14).

The QECs played the key role in sensitizing the university Administration and faculty staff

about the Quality Assurance issues of the University Education and creating awareness about

the need of Self-Assessment by the program Managers in the universities. As given in

Annexure VI, 40-50% of the respondents reported that 60-90 % of the faculty staff had

awareness while only about 40% respondents thought that between 30 and 60 % of the

Administrative staff were aware of the QA initiatives.

The office of the QEC is not given the respect it needs for effective working in the university

environment. This issue is apparent from the fact that only 50% of the HEIs have got full

time Head, 44% QECs have got part time In-charges /Additional charge to a faculty member,

while 6% of the QECs do not have any Head of the Office. The information provided by the

PD(QECs) shows that 65% of the QECs employed 2 Officers, 17% employed one Officer

and 18% employed no Officer, while 6% of the QECs did not employ any Support Staff

(Annex V).

During the site visits, the Dir. QEC expressed that QEC had a low level of acceptance

amongst the faculty and Administration as the Directors were not invited to attend various

meetings of the Statutory Bodies in spite of being declared non-voting members. In some

cases, proper office space has not been provided to the QECs.

The PD (QECs) was not satisfied with the level of input given by HEC for improving

working of QECs. His observations are given under Section ‘Assessment of Efficiency and

Capacity of QAA and QECs in performing their duties’ (see Section 6).

The QAA is following good training programs for the Directors of QECs but is unable to

keep pace with the requirement of increased number of QECs.

The QECs trained the Program Teams (PTs) for preparing SARs based on Self-Assessment

Manual provided by QAA and also gave briefings to Assessment Teams which is a

reasonable system. However, during the scrutiny of some SARs of GCUF, it was found that

the quality of SARs prepared by different PTs varied greatly, i.e. from very good SARs to

rather poor SARs, depending upon the interest taken by the respective PT.

The students in their Teacher and Course evaluations did not fill the column about

Comments. However, they expressed lot of reservations during the FGMs about the quality

of education and facilities provided to them. This showed that they were not encouraged to

participate in the QA activities.

The QECs were generally overloaded with various tasks given by the universities as is

evident from the following reasons narrated by the Dir. QEC at KPK Agri. University,

Peshawar for delay in responding to the Questionnaire sent to him:

(a) Busy in getting information and compiling data for university ranking.

(b) Working on S&T Proforma which is a lengthy and time consuming process.

(c) Training of support staff.

In general, the respondents reported that QECs were extended cooperation by faculty

members (78%), Admin. staff (72%), students (59%), ATs (95%) and PTs (78%)

(Annex.VI).

Most of the Assessment Teams were selected from other departments of the same university

and in some cases, from the same Dept., which made the Program Evaluation questionable.

Most of the QECs (44%) and faculty staff (67%) felt the cycle of Program reviews should be

after every 2 years, while about 33% of both QECs and faculty staff though that it should be

after every 3 years (Annex.VI)

Recommendations of the Assessments were put up to the VC/Rector for approval and then

notified by office of the Registrar/QEC for implementation. Data given in Annex.VI show

that most of the recommendations were implemented.

Most of the respondents such as PMAS Arid Univ. Rawalpindi, COMSATS, Islamabad,

KPK Agri. Univ. Peshawar and others informed that ALL recommendation of the ATs were

accepted by the Competent Authority and plan of implementation was also approved. Work

is in progress in most cases. .The list of the Recommendations implemented by various

universities is quite long and only one such example from IUB is given as Annex. VII.

QAA is regularly reviewing the progress of QECs in the Progress Review meetings held at

HEC.


Quality Assurance mechanism is being applied to all disciplines across board. Before the

implementation of the this program there was no formal system of Quality Assurance for

disciplines other than those that fell in the domain of 14 Accreditation Councils . Thus,

Program Reviews have shown the way for continuous improvement in all subjects being

taught in HEIs all over the country.

The information regarding value of the Program Reviews was collected from the Program In

charges, faculty members, students and university Administration through the respective

QECs. It turned out that 80-100% of the Program In-charges, faculty members, students and

the Administrative staff of the university considered the Value of the Program Reviews as

“Medium” while about 22% of the QECs and faculty respondents considered the Value as

“High” (Annex.VI). Between 90 and 100% of the respondents observed improvement in

Programs due to the Review Process. Annex. VI shows that 91% of the faculty members and

95% of the QECs were satisfied with the outcome of the Review.

The respondents agreed that Program Review Process played a very important role in

creating awareness about the quality of the programs among faculty members (100%

respondents), students (80-83%) and Administration (90-100% respondents) (Annex.

VI). The Impact of the Review Process was significant in terms of the following

parameters as indicated by the positive reply from majority of the respondents:

• It increased awareness among faculty staff, administrative staff and students.

• It helped in increasing faculty members and space for the departments.

• Financial support was also increased for the departments.

• Helped in research publications output.

• Regularity of teachers in classes increased.

• Student evaluation of teachers and courses was improved.

Most of the respondents (78-100%) informed that score of the QEC improved after the

Review, while 67 -100 % of the respondents thought it also helped in improving ranking of

the University (Annex. VI).

According to the data given in the QAA Annual Report 2013-14, the implementation

statistics with regard to Program Reviews are quite encouraging as reproduced below:

(i) Awareness Workshops organized by 55% of the QECs were up to standard, 27%

were below the standard while 18% did not hold any Workshop.

(ii) The %age of QECs conducting 3 mandatory surveys in more than 85% Programs was

47% (34% conducted survey of all Programs). The QECs conducting Survey of less

than 50% programs was 27%.

(iii) The QECs implementing SA mechanism in 85% of the target Programs was 67% of

the total number of QECs reviewed by QAA. Only 12% of the QECs implemented

SA mechanism in less than 50% of the target Programs.

(iv) More than 50% of the QECs addressed more than 85% of the weaknesses identified

by the Assessment Teams.

(v) All of the QECs were able to acquire membership of 1, 2 or 3 International Quality

related bodies.

QECs informed that the following factors had a negative impact on the working of the

universities.

• Low capacity of the QEC,

• Lack of appropriate authority with Dir. QEC,

• Slackness of Program In-charge,

• Slackness of faculty staff,

• High work load,

• Less cooperation from administration,

• Difficulty in finding appropriate Assessment Team,

• Less cooperation from AT.

4.3.3 Follow-up

Office of PD (QECs) at QAA is not conducting review visits at all because of shortage of

human resources. Also, succession planning is not done due to shortage of human resources.

The PD (QECs) at HEC gave a list of difficulties in the Follow-up of the Program Reviews.

The most important problem identified was that due to large number of participants in the

Progress Review Meetings, sufficient time was not given to the participants to make

presentations and discuss their issues. Now the size of the group has been reduced which has

created the problem of arranging a large number of meetings.

The opinion was divided about who was the person responsible for the follow- up for

approval/implementation of Recommendations of the Assessment Teams for various

Programs and mostly multiple offices were identified for this responsibility e.g. 94% of the

QECs thought it was the responsibility of both QEC and Program In-charge, 67% and 94% of

the faculty staff thought it was the responsibility of the QEC and Program In-charge,

respectively, while some others thought that this was the responsibility of PTs (Annex.

VI).This confusion needs to be resolved immediately.

In general, the QECs got prompt response from the PTs and Program In-charges but faced

some difficulties from the Assessment Teams (Annex. VI).

The QECs succeeded in getting approval of the Action Plan for implementing the

Recommendations of the Assessment Teams and notify them promptly. Further actions

depended on the interest of the In-charge Program and availability of funds required for the

purpose. However, progress in actions is always reviewed at various levels.

The PD (QECs) at QAA has reported the following difficulties in the follow-up of Program

reviews.

In progress review meetings, since the sizes of the groups were very large, the participants

could not be given enough time to present / discuss their issues or best practices etc. Further,

administrative problems were also there in managing a large group of participants.

Now the size of the groups for review meetings has been reduced to 15 HEIs. Although the

groups are now manageable but it has increased the number of review meetings per annum,

which, in view of already short HR, is getting difficult to manage.

Because of HR shortage in QAA, review visits are not done at all.

In quantitative assessment a number of problems have been observed:

(i) Poor mechanism of data collection and analysis, although the situation has improved

now by developing models in MS EXCEL. It needs to be automated by developing a

web based MIS.

(ii) Poor evidences in support of yearly progress report (YPR). Evidences are sent

manually, along with YPRs. Because of workload and lack of HR, establishing its

authenticity is difficult, that makes the whole assessment questionable. By developing

a web based MIS having ability of cross verification, this problem can be overcome.

(iii) Lack of reviews of the program self-assessment process.

(iv) Lack of reviews of quantitative assessment criteria.

(v) Dependence of quantitative assessment upon one individual officer. It not only

creates monopoly on IQA relevant information and bias in quantitative assessment

but also can be risky in case the individual leaves or any accident occurs.

Because of HR shortage succession planning is not possible.

Poor archival system and shortage of space. Although, it has improved now, it still needs

further improvement.

Lack of relevant HR. Only one officer, supported by two (shared, temporarily hired)

Assistants are extremely insufficient in view of the scope of the work.

Most of QECs mentioned the following difficulties in discharging their responsibilities:

(a) Inadequate capacity of the QEC.

(b) Lack of appropriate authority with Director/In-charge QEC.

(c) Slackness of Program In-charge

(d) Slackness of faculty members

(e) High work load of QEC.

(f) Less co-operation/support from Administration.

(g) Finding appropriate Assessment Team.

(h) Less co-operation from Assessment Team.

4.3.4 Scope of Improvement

The PD (QECs) informed that there has been no improvement in the structure of QECs since

when they were established. At the same time the QECs needed major improvement in terms

of increase in strength of staff and financial resources, appointment of Regular Director of

QEC and upgrading the status of Director (QEC) urgently. Substantial strengthening of

Office of PD (QEC) at QAA is urgently needed to meet the challenges of increase in

workload due to increase in number of QECs, improvement in Training strategy, Review and

Follow-up programs.

The other suggested improvements endorsed by all respondents are as under:

(a) Increase in permanent human resources of QEC.

(b) Proper training of Director and staff of QEC.

(c) Better status of Director/In-charge QEC.

(d) Increase in financial allocation for QEC.

(e) Better training of Program Teams (PT).

(f) Development of more elaborate guidelines Manual for conduct of Program Reviews.

(g) Better training of Program Assessment Teams.

(h) Increase in payment to Assessment Team.

4.3.5 Better ‘Buy-in’ by faculty staff

Awareness programs at the university level for faculty staff should be strengthened,

particularly through FGMs.

Appointment of a Regular Dir. QEC at a high pay scale has been strongly recommended by

many respondents to achieve the above objective. The author feels that this office should be

headed by Provost to bring more respect to this Office in a university environment.

Including Program Review Reports as agenda item in the Academic Council meetings will be

an important step to improve ‘buy-in’ by the faculty staff.

4.4 Recommendations

Program Reviews are the hub for improvement in quality of education in all universities. This

program needs to be strengthened, pursued more vigorously and with greater seriousness.

To improve the effectiveness of this program, capacity of QAA has to be increased

substantially as review visits are not being conducted by QAA at all.

As recommended previously also, the Office of QEC must be strengthened with conviction to

bring it the required level of respect and through permission of adequate resources to

discharge its duties in a befitting manner. It should serve as the ‘Hub’ for all QA activities at

the university.

QECs will function properly only when the Office of PD (QECs) at QAA is upgraded to

match the challenges of manifold increase in the workload and expansion in the scope of

work. HEC should immediately respond to meet this requirement.

Awareness cum Training programs for faculty staff, students and Administrative staff should

be increased so that the message reaches out to each and every stakeholder. QAA may train

Master Trainers from each university who may then replicate these programs at the

university level.

Assessment Teams may be appointed from other Institutions to make the Assessments more

meaningful.

The Cycle of Programs should be every 2-3 years.

Follow-up programs by QAA and QECs need to be strengthened further and the

responsibility for notification of the recommendations should lie with the QEC while

approval of Action Plan and execution of the planned activities should be the responsibility

of the person In-charge of the Program.

There is lot of scope for improvement in efficiency of the QECs which need to be exploited

through training of the QEC staff particularly in documentation and office skills.

The reports of the Assessment Teams should be included in the agenda of the Academic

Council meetings to bring seriousness to the exercise of Program Reviews.

5. IMPLEMENTATION, OBJECTIVETY, VALUE, IMPACT AND FOLLOW-

UP OF ASSESSMENT REVIEWS

5.1 Background

Self-Assessment is the main instrument used for Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) as well as

a prerequisite for External Quality Assurance (EQA) in any form.

In the context of this study it is defined as ‘assessment of an academic program by the

Program In-charge through a systematic process of gathering, reviewing and using important

quantitative and qualitative data about educational programs for improving student learning

and evaluating whether academic and learning standards are being met’.

However, Self-Assessment is equally applicable to all tiers of learning and Administration in

Educational Institutions. Preparation of Self-Assessment Report (SAR) by an Institution or a

Department in a university is a prerequisite and foundation for any internal review (e.g.

Program Review) or an external review (e.g. Institutional Review and Accreditation Review)

and, therefore, the quality of SARs is of paramount importance for achieving the objectives

of the Review.

HEC prepared and published a Self- Assessment Manual in the year 2005 which was revised

in August, 2006. The basic ingredients of a Self-Assessment Report are drawn from ABET

Engineering Criteria 2000, which required each Engineering program seeking accreditation

or re-accreditation to establish its own Self-Assessment Process which, in turn, was to be

assessed by ABET.

The Program Assessment procedure proposed by HEC is given in the following figure.

HEC proposed Criteria with a number of Standards under each Criterion to prepare

Self-Assessment Report against which each program is assessed by an external Assessment

Team (AT). Results of the Assessment include Implementation Plans given in the Self-

Assessment Manual (page 24).

Self-Assessment for Program Reviews was initiated by QECs in HEIs under the directions of

HEC in the year 2005. The purpose of this component of the study is to evaluate the success

level of the Self-Assessment initiative and appreciation of its impact on the quality of

teaching/learning in all subjects taught in a university. It also aims at identifying any

deficiencies in the Self-Assessment Process being followed and need for revising the Self-

Assessment Manual to include new Criteria and Standards based on the experience gained

over the past one decade.

5.2 Methodology

The questions pertaining to Implementation, Objectivity, Value, Impact and Follow-up of

Self-Assessment Reviews were included in the General Questionnaire (Annex. I) and the

Questionnaire developed for response from the PD (QECs). The Questionnaire filled by the

PD (QECs) is available as Annexure V. Some Self-Assessment reports were also examined

to assess their quality. In fact, this component has largely been covered under the preceding

Sections 3 and 4, while the additional questions raised above will also be addressed here.

Figure –:Self-Assessment Procedure

5.3 Findings


Self-Assessment Reviews (SAR) have been introduced in all HEIs having a QEC. However,

the pace of achievements varies greatly among the HEIs. It depended not only on the size of

the university and size of student enrollment, but also on the capacity of the respective QECs

QEC initiates SA through the Dean one Semester prior to the assessment

Department forms the PT that will be Responsible for preparing SAR

QEC reviews the Document action within One month

SAR Complete

YES

NO

The Vice Chancellor/Rector forms the AT in consultation with the concerned Dean based on the recommendation of

The QEC

QEC plans and fixes ATv visit

The AT conducts assessment and Presents its findings to QEC, Dean, PT

And faculty dept.

The QEC submits an executive Summary to the Vice Chancellor/

Rector

Department prepares implementation Plans in tableA.2

Follow up of the implementation plan by QEC

and interest shown by Administration (VCs/Rectors) and the Program In-charges (HODs).

Some QECs had prepared a large number of SARs as high as 132 (e.g. in the case of PMAS,

Arid Agri. University Rawalpindi), while the professional universities such as MUET;

Jamshoro having smaller number of programs prepared 27 SARs. KPK Agri. Univ. Peshawar

prepared SARs for 34 Programs as listed in Annex.VIII.

Self- Assessment (SA) is not a statutory requirement but was undertaken under the direction

of HEC. It is still not mandatory for the Programs to follow the Self-Assessment process.

However, it was interesting to note that some faculty members and students were concerned

about the lack of Standards such as for control of student enrollment vis-à-vis the facilities

available for the conduct of various Programs. For example, they complained about less

enrolment in some Science Programs, compared with the sister universities having much

lower facilities as the SA Standards were silent about such issues. They stressed on

developing QA system for all Programs similar to the one followed by ACs.

The standards did not match the requirements of many programs as these were basically

developed from the base of Engineering Programs, while Social Sciences and Languages

Programs need a separate set of Standards.

The sub-campuses were not involved in the Process of Self- Assessment and were generally

not aware of the QA programs. However, SZABIST sub-campus at Islamabad had appointed

a dedicated person for this purpose.

The quality of SARs varied greatly among different Programs as was observed for two

Reports received from GCUF.

The PT was generally briefed well by the QEC/ Program In-charge for preparing SAR and

the information provided was verified by the In-charge program and sent to the QEC through

the Dean. This information was verified by the AT during the AT visit.

The person responsible for the follow-up on the Recommendations of the AT was Dir. QEC

instead of the Program In-charge or Dean.

5.3.2 Objectivity

Most of the QEC respondents (89%) were of the view that SARs had high objectivity.

Most of the respondents confirmed that the Objectivity was verified by checking if the SARs

were based on published information, consideration of training of the person preparing SAR,

and the fact that the information given in the SAR was verifiable (Annex. IX).

The authenticity of evaluation of teachers by students was verified by discussion with

students (63% respondents) and by matching it with the repute of the teachers with peers

(53%respondents) (Annex. IX).

PTs and QECs got the relevant evaluation Performas filled by students and by Alumni and

employers in very few cases, mostly from within the university, which was not of much

worth.


A large number of the QEC persons were of the view that SARs helped in getting

Accreditation of the relevant Programs (84% respondents) and played important role in

highlighting the deficiencies of Programs (89% respondents) (Annex. IX).

Students were empowered to give their views about the courses being taught and the

Teachers imparting education to them. They were also given the opportunity to give their

opinion about other aspects of education in the university by filling the column of

‘Comments’ although they rarely utilized this opportunity.

A large number of SARs were prepared as mentioned above under ‘Implementation’, and

many Programs were accredited by the Accreditation Councils on the basis of SARs prepared

by PTs in all the universities.

The SARs played the most significant and a crucial role in creating Awareness among all

stake-holders in the HEIs as discussed in the preceding sections.

Examples of Impact of SARs in specific cases are given below.

The Hamdard University, Karachi mentioned identification of deficiencies, hiring new

faculty and subscription to Int. online Journal as the major impact of SARs.

SZABIST, Karachi mentioned comprehensive documentation of programs, establishment of

Boards of Studies, revamping of curriculum of Programs and MERGER OF THREE

PROGRAMS INTO ONE as the major Impact of SARS.

Indus Univ. mentioned that Course outlines and Course schemes were aligned with Course

Codes and titles prescribed by the HEC.

In AJKU, Muzaffarabad, highly qualified faculty was recruited to cope with requirements of

M Phil and PhD programs.

NOTE: There are many other similar examples of the Impact but space does allow

mentioning all of them.

5.3.4 Follow-up

The list of SARs and their follow-up provided by IUB (Annex, VII) and KPK Agri. Univ.,

Peshawar as given in Annexure VIII are good examples of outcomes of Follow-up of SARs.

According to the prescribed procedure, the department submits SAR to the QEC through the

concerned Dean and QEC reviews the SAR to ensure that it is prepared according to the

format, followed by approval of ATs by the VC/Rector in consultation with the QEC. AT

comprise 2-3 faculty members from within or outside the university including at least one

expert in the area of the program to be assessed. The department submits Implementation

Plan to the QEC who is responsible to Implement the Plan.

The data provided by QECs show that there is an effective Follow-up on the SARs. The

SARs are followed up till the implementation of the recommendations of the External

Reviewers including ATs and ACs.

5.4 Recommendations

The Self-Assessment should be pursued vigorously and expanded to cover 100% of the

Programs offered by all HEIs.

The quality of SARs should be improved through effective training of PTs and ATs by QECs

under the direction of QAA.

The Self-Assessment Manual needs to be revised to address issues related with Social

Sciences and Languages etc.

ATs should be appointed from the pool of experts from other universities and, preferably, at

least one expert from industry/field should be included in the AT. The Self Assessment

Manual may revised accordingly.

Instead of the QEC, the owner of the Program i.e. In-charge/Dean should be made

responsible for Follow-up on implementation of recommendations of ATs/ACs.

6. ASSESSMENT OF EFFICIENCY AND CAPACITY OF THE QUALITY

ASSURANCE AGENCY (QAA) & QUALITY ENHANCEMENT CELLS

(QECs) IN PERFORMING THEIR DUTIES

6.1 Background

The HEC Ordinance/Act mandates the Commission with respect to accreditation of

Institutes, their Departments, Faculties and disciplines by setting up new evaluation councils

or empowering the existing ones. The clause is reproduced here under:

“Set up national or regional evaluation Councils or authorize any existing Council or similar

body to carry out accreditation of institutions including their departments, faculties and

disciplines by giving them appropriate ratings. The Commission shall help build capacity of

existing Councils or bodies in order to enhance the reliability of the evaluation carried out by

them.”

The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) was established by the HEC in May, 2005. It was

visualized to be ultimately an independent and autonomous body for implementing Quality

Standards in the Higher Education Institutions across the country. The QAA was given the

mandate to establish new ACs and help existing Accreditation Councils by providing

guidance and training, as well as financial support to the newly established Councils, at least

in the initial period. The QAA was headed by a Managing Director and its structure and

Mandate was expected to be revisited and given protection under Act. The QAA was

expected to be responsible for all EQA functions, and act as the Accrediting body for all the

Accreditation Councils, including those established under Act by the Govt. of Pakistan

(GOP-Councils).

The Annual Report of QAA includes the following statements.

QAA Mission:

“To integrate the concept of quality assurance in higher learning with enhanced levels of

international compatibility through capacity building”.

QAA Vision:

“Developing a visible and sustainable

mechanism of quality assurance in higher learning sector to

meet the rising challenges of transforming the country into

a knowledge economy”.

Since then, QAA operates within the following framework:

Stage I: Pertains to QA Standards and

Criteria

Stage II: Undertakes the aspect of Internal

Quality Assurance i.e. IQA

Stage III: Assures the quality by reinforcing it from

external facet i.e. EQA

Having established the IQA mechanism under Stage II, at present, QAA is passing through

Stage III i.e. EQA and is striving to assure the academic quality at HEIs by functioning in

these dimensions.

At the moment the QAA is headed by a Director General who is supervising all activities of

QAA with the help of only few Officers.

The DG (QAA) has provided the following information in response to the Questionnaire sent

to him:

SN Name Designation Major Tasks

1 Dr. Mohammed

Rafiq Baloch

Director General, QAA Heading the QA Division

2 Mr. Nasir Shah Director QAA Heading IQA Section of QAA

Heading EQA-Program Level

Quality Assurance by means of

Accreditation Councils

3 Mr.

Shoaib

Muhammad

Project Director

[EQA-Institute

Level]

He is shared with

HRD Division

Heading EQA-Institute Level Review.

Deals in all accredited universities of HEC

and performs following functions:

i. Evaluation of entire performance of each

Public/ Private Degree Awarding

Institutions on the basis of 11 standards

already defined by QAA, HEC.

ii. Coordination with universities for the

preparation of University Portfolio Report.

iii. Coordination and Conduction of visits of all

Public and Private Sector DAIs on

the given

standards

iv. Selection, Capacity Building and facilitation

of Institutional Evaluators involved in IPES.

4 Mr. Abaidullah

Anwar

Assistant Director (IQA) Assisting Director (QAA) helps in: -

Administering the activities w.r.t.

establishing new QECs and IQA

mechanism in established QECs

(i.e. 162 so far) in all the accredited HEIs of

Pakistan (i.e. 177, so far). The objective is

to attain: “All the accredited HEIs have

their Directorates of Quality Assurance and

have achieved W level of academic

quality”. For attaining the objective, the

following activities are performed:

Preparing and reviewing the criteria and

developing IQ standards.

Establishing new Directorates of Quality

Enhancement.

Capacity building of HEIs [new and

existing] w.r.t. the IQA criteria and

standards.

Progress Monitoring – by means of

Progress Review Meetings.

Progress Monitoring & Assuring - by means

of Surprise/informed

visits of HEIs.

Progress Assessing and Rating – by means

of submitted annual reports, individually by

each HEI.

The report is assessed in accordance with

the provided criteri and standards and the

given targets.

Assessment of the self-assessment process /

IQA mechanism.

Coordinating with DAIs, Keeping and

maintaining databases and archives.

5 Ms.

Quddus

Humaira Assistant Director

[EQA-Program

Level by means of

Accreditation

Councils]

Program Level Accreditation by means of

establishing discipline wise Accreditation

Councils.

Deals with 9 Professional councils and

performs following functions: Coordination

with already existing

Professional Accreditation Councils.

Establishment of New Councils in those

disciplines where deemed necessary.




Capacity Building of Accreditation

Councils including Capacity Building of

Program Evaluators of Accreditation

Councils.

Assessment, Funding and continuous

facilitation of Councils.

Need assessment of established councils

Annual meeting and subcommittee

meeting of all Accreditation Councils

Assisting Director QAA in dealing with 4

councils established by HEC and performs

following functions:

Coordination with already existing




Capacity Building of Accreditation

Councils including Capacity Building of

Program Evaluators of Accreditation

Councils.

Assessment, Funding and continuous

facilitation of HEC Established Councils

6 Mr. Shoaib Irshad Assistant Director

[EQA-Program

Level Review]

Review visits of PhD and MS/MPhil level

programs. Out of more than 110 HEIs

which are offering PhD programs, more

than 300 programs of more than 46 HEIs

have been reviewed as you

Further, w.r.t. MS/MPhil program review

86 programs of 9 HEIs have yet been

reviewed. Job description of the

incumbent is:

Assisting Director General QAA in

conducting PhD as well as MS/MPhil

Program Level Review Visits and

performs following functions:

Data gathering of all Ph.D. scholars

enrolled in all programs of each DAIs on

given templates.

Ph.D. Program Review Visit of all Public/

Private Sector DAIs that are offering Ph.D.

Programs.

Coordination and conduction of Ph.D.

Program Review Visit.

Selection, Capacity Building and

facilitation of Program Evaluators

involved in Ph.D. Program Review.

7 Mr. Muhammad

Raza

Assistant Director

[Governance Review

under PM’s

Directive]

Assisting Director General QAA in

conducting governance review visits of all

the Pakistani universities and preparing this

reports.

8 Ms. Pakeeza

Yousef

Private Secretary to

DG

Assists DG QAA

9 Mr. Amjad Farooq Assistant Private

Secretary

Assists all the sections of QAA in putting

up and clearing financial matters from

Finance Department. QAA has to deal with

an enormous amount of TA/DA bills, hotel

bills of conducting workshops, seminars,

review meetings etc.

10 Ms. Anum Diary Despatcher Deals in diary and dispatch of department’s

official mail.

11 Mr. Zulfiqar Assistant Assists Mr. Shoaib Irshad – AD (EQA

Program Level Review).

12 Mr. Mohsin Saleem DEO-Contingent Paid Assists AD (IQA) as well as AD

(EQA-Program Level via

Accreditation Councils).

13 Mr. Umar Nawaz Assistant-

Contingent Paid

Assists AD (IQA), AD (EQA) Program

Level via Accreditation Councils) as well as

to AD (Governance Review)

14 Mr. Rehan Naib Qasid

15 Mr. Anwar Naib Qasid

QECs

HEC views QECs as the most powerful instrument for a quick start and continued IQA

mechanism for all Programs in all HEIs, not otherwise covered by Accreditation Councils.

To date, QAA has established QECs at the main campuses of 162 HEIs and reviewed their

status in the case of 116 QECs which is a tremendous amount of work. QAA is also actively

following a program of Capacity Building of these QECs through extensive trainings and

follow-up programs. It is carrying out assessment program for QECs using a score card

system. At QAA, an Officer of Assistant Director level is responsible for the entire QECs

network in the country.

It needs to be clarified at this stage that another parallel department called Quality Assurance

Division (QAD) of HEC is looking after other relevant areas of QA such as Qualification

Framework, Plagiarism etc. The present set up of QAD and its functions are given as below:

1.

SN Name Designation Major Tasks

1 Muhammad

Ismail

Consultant QA Heading the QA Division

2 Ms Shamim

Shami

Director QA Issuance of NOCs for launching of New

MPhil/MS/Equivalent and PhD

Programs

Review of the relevant policies

Handling the queries and complaints regarding

above mentioned matters.

3 Ms Dur-e-

Shahwar

Deputy Director

QA –I

Evaluation/Recognition of National Research

Journals and Financial Support




4 Muneer Ahmed Deputy Director

QA-II

Implementation of Plagiarism Policy Matters

related to Directorates of Distance Education



above mentioned matters. Responding to Court

Cases

5 M. Saleem

Qamar

Assistant

Director QA

Endorsement of TTS appointments/

promotions cases

Reviewing the TTS draft Statutes of the

Universities


above mentioned matters

Responding to Court Cases

6 Sanaullah

Memon

Assistant

Director QA-I

Implementation of QA Policies related to

Faculty employment/promotion and admission

to MS/MPhil/Equivalent and PhD Programs

Formulation of QA Policies, the National

Quality Assurance

Committee

National Qualification Framework and

register


above mentioned matters Responding to Court

Cases

7 Ms. Sadia

Bukhari

Assistant

Director QA-II

Endorsement of TTS appointments/

promotions cases



8 Rahim Shah Assistant

Personal Sec

Assists Consultant QA

9 Ms Saria Amjad Research Associate Assists AD QA

10 Syed

Masroor Shah

Computer Operator Assists DD QA-I

11 M. Rafaqat Awan Assistant Assist D QA

12 Muhammad Naeem LDC Assists DD QA-II

13 Farman Naib Qasid

14 Ansar Nawaz Naib Qasid

2. Above mentioned activities entail an enormous volume of work hours for which

appropriate number of officers and support staff (Assistants/Computer

Operators/Research Associates/Internees) are essentially required. Currently, QAD is

functioning at strength of 62.5% against the approved posts.

3. In the absence of a regular head of QAD during last year, a large number of cases

related to TTS, NOCs for new programs, plagiarism etc. got accumulated. Recent

increase in the salary of TTS faculty has promoted many more faculty members to join

the Scheme. Overall, with increase in the number of universities/DAIs, the cases related

to all the functions of QAD are increasing significantly.

4. Although the Officers dealing with the above mentioned activities work very efficiently

but they are constrained by the lack of support staff in the areas of maintenance of files

/ record, typing, follow up on the HEC instructions to the universities / DAIs, checking

the records, searching for the record / information from the files / internet, mail

dispatch/receipt entries, follow up on the required information / response from the

Universities in the cases of plagiarism, NOC issuance, TTS cases, implementation of

the QA guidelines etc. There is no support staff to assist DDQA-II, ADQA-I and

ADQA-II. No Superintendent and mail dispatcher is available at the Division Level.

5. There are a large number of files, which are placed in the stores without any

arrangement. Tracing a file and looking for required information sometimes become a

serious problem. The data base of TTS cases needs to be streamlined. Even determining

the backlog of work is not possible due to the involvement of the staff in day to day

routine work.

6. The delay in response to TTS and NOCs cases, queries and complaints on any matter

mentioned above, in spite of very strenuous efforts by QAD, causes irritation, and

hatred, frustration, disappointment to the faculty and institutions on one part and

embarrassment, bad taste and humiliation for HEC on the other.

7. In the context of above mentioned situation and the backlog available at QAD, there is

an urgent need to improve the capacity of the QAD for the timely / efficient disposal of

cases by providing additional staff as mentioned below:

OFFICERS

(a) One DDQA (for TTS)

(b) Two ADQA (for TTS)

(c) One ADQA (Plagiarism Section)

(d) One ADQA (Distance Education)

(e) One DDQA (NOC Programs)

(f) One ADQA (NOC Programs)

(g) DDQA (Implementation of QA Policies)

(h) ADQA (Implementation of QA Policies)

SUPPORT STAFF

One Superintendent for Division

One Assistant for DDQA-II

One Assistant for ADQA-I

One Assistant for ADQA-II

One Mail Dispatcher/Receiver for Division

The purpose of this component of the study is to assess the efficiency and capacity of the

QAA and QECs in performing their duties.

6.2 Methodology

The latest available Annual Report of QAA was studied to understand its current

engagements.

Detailed Questionnaires were sent to DG (QAA), Consultant (QAD) and PD (QECs) at HEC.

Brief discussions were also held with DG (QAA) and Consultant (QAD), while regular

contact was maintained with Mr. Nasir Shah, Director QAA who is also the Focal Person for

this Study.

The role of QECs has already been discussed in detail in Sections 3, 4 & 5 of this Report,

while a part of the QAA activities will also be discussed here. Feedback from QECs, DG

(QAA), Consultant (QAD). PD (QECs), data collected from Institutions, discussions with

stake holders in Universities during site visits and Annual Report of QAA were used to give

Findings and making Recommendations.

6.3 Findings

Even a cursory look at the current set up (see human resource figures given above) of QAA,

QAD and QECs management at HEC will tell the story of ‘Capacity’ of these very important

Offices responsible for Quality Assurance of HE sector of Pakistan. The manpower in this

Division of HEC is dismally low and requires immediate attention of HEC Authorities. The

information provided regarding the problems of coping with the workload are also mentioned

by QAA and QAD which include a huge backlog of various queries pertaining to NOCs, TTS

cases, Plagiarism cases and implementation of HEC Guidelines etc. to be responded by the

Division.

The QECs, faculty staff and some ACs in their response to the Questionnaires had indicated

the problem of no response and late response from QAA and QAD offices which entailed

frustration and a bad impression of HEC among the affected people and Organizations as an

Organization,

The failure of the QAA and QAD staff to deliver appropriately in spite of best efforts made

and extra time devoted to office by them, caused frustration and disappointment among the

very good Officers and the supporting staff. One could easily feel the impact of over work on

senior and junior staff equally, in meetings with them. This should be a matter of serious

concern for the HEC Authorities.

The issues of the QECs at HEI level have already been discussed earlier under Section 4 of

this Report.

QAA and QAD as well as PD (QECs) faced a severe problem of storing, sorting and

extracting information from the files due to shortage of space and poor management of

Archives and lack of supporting staff to meet the needs of 177 HEIs.

Officers of HEC were generally not satisfied about meeting the expectations of HEIs.

In spite of the fact that the QECs undertook a large number of Awareness campaigns at the

Institution level, a high percentage of faculty and Admin. Staff was not aware of the QA

activities. This situation was even worse for the students.

In spite of various difficulties, achievements of the QECs were very good in terms of

preparation of SARs and conduct of Program Reviews.

The above observations in no way reflect on the ‘Efficiency’ of QAA, QAD and the PD

(QECs) and QECs at HEIs who were delivering extraordinarily more than expected, in spite

of the capacity issues. In fact, considering all the constraints, efficiency of these offices was

quite high.

6.4 Recommendations

The most important recommendation is that the QAA-QAD and Offices of PD (QECs) and

Dir. QEC at HEIs should be immediately strengthened in terms of human and financial

resources by HEC/HEIs. The new officers to be appointed should have knowledge and

aptitude to handle Quality issues of the HE sector.

Management of Archives and provision of archival space for the above Divisions/office

should be given high priority by HEC.

It is emphasized that optimum working of Quality Assurance system which is declared as one

of the three pillars of the HEC’s strategic planning holds key to the production of high

quality graduates by HEIs. Therefore, QAA-QAD at HEC should be given the resources at

the optimum level to discharge their duties effectively.

QECs at HEIs need to be upgraded and strengthened to meet the QA challenges at the

university level as discussed under Sections 4 and 5 of this Report and is evidenced by the

relatively better output of better established QECs of SBKU, Quetta and KPK Agri. Univ.

Peshawar, compared with many other QECs.

7. EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ACCREDIATATION

COUNCILS

7.1 Background

Accreditation Councils (ACs) have the mandate to accredit the relevant undergraduate

professional degree programs all over the country and have the authority to control launching

of such programs by HEIs. Thus, their role is crucial in controlling the quality of these

programs. To date, the Govt. of Pakistan has established 9 such Councils under their own

respective Acts. The Councils are:

• Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC).

• Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC).

• Pharmacy Council of Pakistan (PCP).

• Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council (PVMC).

• Pakistan Nursing Council (PNC).

• Pakistan Bar Council (PBC).

• Pakistan Council for Architects and Town Planners (PCATP).

• National Council for ‘Tibb’ (NCT).

• National Council for Homeopathy (NCH).

All programs launched by the HEIs falling in the domain of the above ACs require

accreditation/re-accreditation by the respective AC, for recognition of the degrees and

‘Practice’ by the graduates. Therefore, these Councils have a very important position and

authority to implement Quality Standards in the respective programs. The scope of work of

these ACs is limited to the programs that lie within their respective domains.

However, there were many new disciplines which were growing rapidly and so was the

number of new sub-standard DAIs that were established in small buildings in streets of all

cities all over the country- a phenomenon called by HEC the ‘mushroom growth of DAIs’

phenomenon. This phenomenon was more visible throughout the country in the disciplines of

Business Education and Computing Education. Also, some key Disciplines like Agriculture

and Teachers Education had no External Quality Assurance mechanism.

In the wake this grave situation, the HEC established the following 5 Accreditation Councils

(NTC has been established very recently) as was provided in the Ordinance/Act of the HEC.

• National Business Education Accreditation Council (NBAEC).

• National Computing Education Accreditation Council (NCEAC).

• National Agriculture Education Accreditation Council (NAEAC).

• National Accreditation Council for Teacher Education (NACTE).

• HEC has very recently established National Technology Council (NTC).

Note: The author of this Report (Consultant) is a member of the NAEAC.

The above 5 Councils apparently do not enjoy the same authority as the 9 Councils

established by GOP, but are quite effective (except for NACTE) in terms of implementing

Quality Assurance Standards in their respective domains.

HEC has published a Brochure on “Good Practices for Quality Assurance for Accreditation

Councils in Pakistan” (Batool and Qureshi, 2005). In this study the performance of the above

4 Councils has been evaluated while the issues of the 3 Councils established by GOP that

responded to the Questionnaire have also been highlighted.

7.2 Methodology

All the 4 Accreditation Councils established by the HEC (5th has been established only

recently) and 6 Councils out of 9 established by GOP were approached to fill Questionnaires

(Annex. X & XI) sent to them by the Consultant to have their point of view about their role

in Quality Assurance of their respective Disciplines. All HEC Councils and 3 GOP Councils

i.e. PEC, PVMC and PCATP responded and sent back the filled in Questionnaires.

Questions relevant to the role of ACs and their performance were also included in the

Questionnaire sent to all QECs. Also, a separate Questionnaire (Annex. XII) was sent to Dir.

QAA who is the officer In-charge of ACs at HEC. Additional information from the HEC

Councils in the form of Annual Reports was also collected. The performance of ACs was

evaluated in the light of the information gathered through all above mentioned sources.

7.3 Findings

The findings of this component are divided into three parts i.e. for HEC Councils, GOP

Councils and QECs.

HEC Councils

The Councils were well organized under the umbrella of QAA and are performing their

functions well as per their mandate. They were sharing with QAA the status of program

accreditation on quarterly basis, and their Annual Action Plan before the closure of the

financial year. The QAA was supporting training workshops of all the Councils conducted by

foreign experts for Program Evaluators e.g. for NAEAC (Annex. XIII).

These Councils have progressed well in achieving their goals and assessed/accredited a large

number of programs (214 by NCEAC, 231 by NAEAC,205 by NACTE). The process takes

about 3-4 months to complete which is undertaken for a number of Programs simultaneously.

Unlike the GOP Councils, the HEC Councils divide the Program-Assessment results into W,

X, Y and Z categories, W being the best and Z the poorest category, to guide the HEIs about

their status of Quality/ Accreditation.

Each Council has a different understanding of its legal authority. THE NAEAC feels that

legal authority was an issue to be resolved. NACTE was of the view that the Council’s legal

authority/mandate of the Council was questioned by many Institutions, particularly by the

public sector Colleges of Education in Punjab. Not a single college in Punjab applied for

accreditation, rather there was resistance from the DSD, Lahore. The universities are

affiliating Teachers Education Programs without informing the Council and bypass the

Council in this regard. These HEIs do not even respond to NACTE on this issue.

NBEAC had entirely a different concept about this issue and believed that accreditation

should be a voluntary exercise and Business Schools should work on self-motivation to

improve the quality of the programs.

The NCEAC has remained silent on the issue of the ‘authority’.

The Councils have streamlined the procedure for assessment and published Manuals for

Training of Reviewers and preparation of SARs. NACTE has published a number of high

quality Manuals with the assistance of UNESCO and USAID.

The HEIs have shown satisfaction with the accreditation process of HEC Councils and its

outcome.

GOP Councils

Three Councils responded to the Questionnaire sent to them and the Questionnaire filled by

PEC (Annex. XIV) is a good example of clarity in procedure adopted for accreditation by

them. The accreditation process followed by these Councils is clearly laid down, though they

differ in certain details e.g. in the selection of the Inspection Teams.

These Councils differ greatly in terms of time since establishment and have Accredited /

assessed for accreditation a large number of Programs. For example, PEC has accredited 326

programs while 100+ are under process, PVMC has accredited 37 programs and PCATP

accredited 18 B.Arch. and 3 B.Sc. City& Regional Planning Programs.

These Councils have published Manuals for guidance of HEIs and training of Accreditation

teams.

Except for PEC (and may be PM&DC) these Councils are not accredited by International

bodies. However, they regularly follow the Self-Assessment process and review their

Standards in the Council meetings.

These Councils tend to align their accreditation criteria with the international bodies, e.g.

PEC criteria are in line with Washington Accord (WA) and Federation of Engineering

Institutions of Asia and the Pacific (FEIAP).

The procedure for resolution of conflict with the HEIs regarding decisions of the Councils is

well defined. However, in the case of PVMC, this procedure is biased entirely in favor of the

Council, the HEIs do not have much choice but to accept the decision of the Council.

QAA

HEC/QAA is in the process of establishment of new Councils of Life Sciences, Social

Sciences and Medical Allied Health Sciences which is an important step at this stage.

HEC has made significant achievements by way of signing MOUs with major GOP-

Councils i.e. PEC, PVMC, PCATP and PBC for conflict resolution.

QAA has resolved major issues of Medical graduates from Cuba and Veterinary graduates of

non- accredited Institutions.

Response from the HEIs

The FP/QEC was properly briefed (80% respondents), for the preparation of SAR by

providing Manual and guidance during Zero Visit by the AC Team.

In about 90% cases, the HEIs were satisfied with the Accreditation process and its outcome

(Annex. XV).

7.4 Recommendations

New HEC Councils under consideration should be established earliest and their number

increased to include Natural Sciences and Basic Sciences.

The issue of legal status of the HEC Councils is sensitive and needs to be tackled wisely at

the earliest opportunity, in consultation with legal experts.

The concept of NBEAC about its mandate for accreditation needs to be clarified earliest by

QAA.

The problem of lack of response to NACTE by Teachers Education Colleges towards

accreditation by NACTE is a serious issue to be addressed by QAA. Its resolution with the

help of QECs and taking up the issue with Govt. of the Punjab needs consideration by QAA.

QAA needs to be strengthened to a much higher level to deal with the existing HEC

Councils, GOP Councils and new Councils under consideration for establishment.

The HEC may increase its financial support for the HEC Councils to make them viable, and

for capacity building of the Councils.

8. EVALUATION OF THE ACCREDIATATION SYSTEMS AND CRITERIA

COMPLIANCE WITH DECISION AND COMPARISON BETWEEN

TREATMENT OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC HEIs (IN COORDINATION

WITH STUDY # 6)

8.1 Background

Accreditation System for HEIs and DAIs

There is no formal Accreditation System in vogue for existing HEIs/ DAIs e.g. evaluation

against IPES for accreditation. However, HEC has developed Criteria (Check List)for

recognition of newly established HEIs/DAIs as given in Annex. XVI, which are strictly

implemented by HEC both for the Public and Private Institutions of higher learning.

In parallel to the HEC, the Provincial governments have also constituted their own

Committees for recognition of the new Institutions that apply for recognition e.g. Charter

Inspection and Evaluation Committee (CIEC) in the Sind Province. The constitution of these

Committees varies in different provinces but the Committee is generally led by the provincial

Secretary of Education, except for the Sind province where it was led by a retired senior

Bureaucrat Dr. S M Qureshi, the Consultant for the TPV study under TESP. The Author of

this report represented HEC for many years on these Committees. Initially, there were

serious conflicts between HEC and the Provincial governments on the issue of recognition of

newly established HEIs. However, later on, this issue was resolved through joint site visits by

the HEC Committee and respective Provincial Committees.

After the positive decision by the joint Committee of HEC and the respective Provincial

Govt., name of the Institution is placed on the HEC Website in the list of recognized

Institutions.

HEC regularly publishes Parent Alerts in the leading national newspapers and the list of

HEIs/DAIs ‘Recognized’/ ‘Not Recognized’ by HEC is placed on the HEC Website.

The recognition criteria are the same and are applied with equal rigor to Public and Private

Institutions.

Accreditation of all Academic Programs offered by HEIs in Pakistan that fall in the domain

of the 9 Accreditation Councils established by GOP through legislation is mandatory and

there is no distinction between private and public sector HEIs in this regard. Launching of

these programs and their accreditation by the relevant Councils is essential for the

recognition of degrees and registration of the graduates for employment and private practice

as professionals. The list of such Councils is given in Section 7 of the Report. Each Council

has developed its own Criteria and Standards for evaluation /accreditation of the relevant

programs under various disciplines. These Criteria and Standards are aligned with the

international practices for international recognition of the degrees of the graduates. However,

for this purpose many countries hold their own examinations for the recognition of degrees

from other countries in spite of the fact that such degree programs were accredited by the

Accreditation Council of that country. For example, PM&DC does not recognize the degrees

awarded in Medical subjects unless the candidates pass the test held by PM&DC.

Each Council has developed detailed procedure of accreditation (example of PEC is given in

Annex. XIV). Compliance to the decision of the Accreditation Council is mandatory and

there is no exception in this regard. In case any HEI disagrees with the decision of the

Council, it has the right to contest the decision through an appeal against the decision, based

on strong logical grounds. The final decision on the appeal, however, lies with Council.

The case of accreditation/evaluation of programs by the 4 HEC Councils who work in

parallel to the GOP Councils is different in terms of the ‘mandatory’ status.

This issue of legal authority of HEC Councils has been discussed in the preceding Section 7

of the Study. In spite of this shortcoming, the HEIs are offering their programs of Computing

Education, Agriculture Education and Business Education for evaluation, while NACTE is

facing problems from Colleges/Institutions in Punjab offering programs of Teachers

Education.

The HEC-Councils do not accredit any program but, using the Criteria and Standards

developed by HEC, the Assessments Teams appointed by the Councils identify strengths and

weaknesses of the Program and place the program in one of the categories i.e. W, X,Y and Z

to sensitize the Institution about the steps to be taken for the improvement of the programs.

HEC publishes the status of each program as determined by the Councils on its website and

QAA publishes ‘Parent Alerts’ for guidance of the public about the quality of the program.

This step of publicity encourages the HEIs to struggle for compliance to the decisions of the

HEC-Councils. On the basis of success achieved by the existing Councils. HEC has decided

to establish more Councils on the pattern of the existing Councils in the disciplines of Life

Sciences, Social Sciences and Medical Allied Health Sciences which is the right step to be

taken at this stage. The 5th Council i.e. National Technology Council (NTC) has been

established very recently

Note: This component of the study has largely been covered under Section 7. However, an

attempt is made below to compare treatment of private and public HEIs in terms of

accreditation of programs by the Accreditation Councils.

8.2 Methodology

Feedback from the 5 Private universities was collected through the Questionnaire sent to their

QECs. These universities were: Iqra University, Karachi, Indus University, Karachi,

Hamdard University, Karachi, SZABIST, Karachi and Institute of Space Technology (IST),

Islamabad. A Questionnaire was also sent to the PD looking after the matter pertaining to

Private Institutions at HEC to collect the required information (Annex. XII). DG (A&A) at

HEC was also approached to get the relevant information. The information given on the HEC

Website and feedback from ACs was also utilized for the purpose of evaluation of HEIs and

DAIs.

8.3 Findings

HEC has developed minimum Criteria for establishment/recognition of HEIs/DAIs in the

Public and Private Institutions.

To date, HEC has inspected and recognized 51 Institutions in the public sector and 36 in the

private sector based on the approved minimum criteria for recognition of HEIs.

There is no difference in the Criteria used for recognition of private and public sector

Institutions. ALL (100%) Private HEIs informed that they were satisfied with the

Accreditation Process.

Accreditation Process and Accreditation Criteria were the same for public and private

Institutions as was informed by the Private HEIs.

The Minimum Criteria used for recognition of DAIs are apparently too low and should be

enhanced.

HEC has developed a system to address complaints against decisions of the

Committee by the HEIs and has addressed 60 such complaints since its establishment. In

such cases, provincial authorities are requested to resolve the conflict on the basis of NOC

granted to private and public sector HEIs by HEC.

8.4 Recommendations

The current system of recognition of new HEIs based on Minimum Criteria is working well

and should continue to encourage establishment of new HEIs/DAIs.

After about 5 years after recognition, the HEIs may be evaluated through a ‘soft review,’ and

re-evaluated through a ‘hard review’ using the IPES Criteria and Standards.

9. ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS AS APPLIED TO

AFFILIATED COLLEGES AND EXTERNAL DEGREE PROGRAMS (IN

COORDINATION WITH STUDIES # 4 & 5)

9.1 Background

Government of Pakistan, HEC and general public in the country are equally concerned about

the issue of Access to Higher Education. The Planning Commission of Pakistan in its

Approach Paper (2006) on Strategic Direction to achieve Vision 2030 mentioned that

‘Pakistan faced a tremendous challenge in developing a system of delivery of quality

education at all levels’. In spite of establishment of a large number of new HEIs both in the

public and private sectors, it is not possible to cope with the burgeoning demand for higher

education in Pakistan. Therefore, to deal with the issue of the widening gap in demand for

higher education and the limited capacity of public sector to handle it, dependence on

Distance Education (External Degree Programs) and Affiliated Colleges is rapidly

increasing, while the challenges of quality assurance for these modes of education need to be

addressed effectively. In the past few years, a rat race for affiliation of colleges (especially

the private colleges) by the public sector HEIs with the main objective of increasing

university income has been witnessed.

Two separate studies one each for Affiliated Colleges and for External Degree Programs are

being conducted concurrently by two Consultants under TESP and the Author of this Report

was expected to coordinate with the two Consultants which did not become possible. This

Study is ,however, focused on Quality Assurance system rather than overall review of the

above two modes of Higher Education.

At this stage, the Author has got access to the Draft Reports submitted by the two

Consultants which have been utilized to strengthen this Chapter and, for the sake of

convenience, the two modes of education have been discussed separately.

9.2 Methodology

Information was collected from QECs as well as In-charge External Degree Programs

through Questionnaire appended as Annex. XVIII.

The Drafts Reports of the two Consultants for Affiliated Colleges and External Degree

Programs were also consulted. In addition, the World Bank Discussion Paper Report No.47,

the HEC PC-1 for Establishment of Directorate of Distance Education, Survey Report of

Affiliated Colleges conducted under DLI 4 etc. were also consulted. Findings and

Recommendations are based on the literature reviewed and the limited data collected from

QECs (Annex. XIX).

9.3 Affiliated Colleges

9.3.1 Background

According to the Word Bank Discussion Paper series Report No. 47, Affiliated Colleges

Model is regarded as the weakest link in the Higher Education sector while about 45% of the

graduates in South Asia come from this stream. Therefore, the quality of education of

Affiliated Colleges is a matter of serious concern for this region.

HEC Website shows the list of colleges affiliated with various universities which gives

interesting evidence of lack of seriousness and concern of many universities about relevance

of the Affiliated Colleges with their academic programs.

In Pakistan, there was mushroom growth of Affiliated Colleges after 2002, especially by the

newly established universities and the number has grown to 1900 with enrolment of about

1.5 million students as given below (HEC, 2014).

Number of Colleges, Enrolment and Faculty

Provinces No. of

Affiliated

Colleges

Enrolment Faculty

Punjab 1,351 1,018,248 36,648

Sindh 268 339,060 7,582

KPK 209 74,981 5,674

Baluchistan 72 62,568 3,212

Total 1,900 1,494,857 53,116

Most of these colleges (1351) with student strength of over one million are located in the

Punjab Province. These colleges normally imparted education at BA/BSc levels (2 years

course) under Annual system of examinations. In some Postgraduate colleges, MSc,

MPhil/MS level education is also being imparted. Under the direction of HEC, the

universities have now shifted to 4 year (124-130 credit hours) BS program and the Affiliated

Colleges are adopting the same system. The curriculum followed by the colleges is the same

as followed by the Affiliating University which, in turn, is developed by Acad. Division of

HEC by involving various universities of the country. However, in this exercise, college

teachers are rarely involved directly. The examinations are conducted by the affiliating

university which will face difficulties when Semester system is fully adopted by the colleges.

The Affiliated Colleges are generally established in the Public sector and work under the

administrative control of the respective provincial governments. Therefore, the HEC as a

Federal organization, has no direct say in their affairs. Recently, the number of private

colleges and private Groups of Colleges run under their own administrative set up has

increased rapidly. However, all Affiliating Universities follow HEC’s guidelines for

maintaining standard of education of these colleges, including the minimum standards to be

met by a college for affiliation. Nevertheless, the watertight bureaucratic system of

Directorates of Colleges under various provincial ministries will play a major role in any

future strategy for improving conditions of these colleges.

Quality Assurance for Affiliated Colleges

In general, the quality of the affiliated colleges in the South Asian region is not satisfactory

as was also pointed out in the World Bank Report No 47 (2011). While discussing the

question, “can quality expansion be achieved with the current Affiliation Model?” the

categorical answer was “No, it is no longer sustainable or wise to continue the current way

these colleges are operated and managed” This answer is applicable to Pakistan’s situation as

well. However, there have been many exceptions in Pakistan where the past history shows

that affiliated colleges like Govt. College, Lahore, Punjab Agri. College and Research

Institute, Lyallpur (Faisalabad), Hailey College of Commerce and Law College performed

extremely well and got international fame within the same set up/Model. This is an import

point to ponder that why majority of the colleges failed to perform while some others did not

find the system to be an obstacle in the way of their excellent performance? One common

factor for better performers was their high quality leadership and faculty as well as good

administration at the college level. Even the current studies show huge difference in the

quality of Affiliated Colleges (e.g. HEC and World Bank, TESP, 2014).

It was strongly felt by HEC that unless the quality of graduates of which a high proportion

comes from the Affiliated Colleges is improved, quality of higher level degree holders will

remain compromised. Therefore, HEC took many steps for improving the quality of teaching

at these colleges by providing necessary guidelines to the Affiliating Universities. It,

however, needs to be well understood that there are many interacting factors that determine

the quality of education that include, among others, the quality of the faculty staff, leadership

of the college, curricula being followed, facilities such as library, internet, computers, labs,

classrooms and student amenities etc., support from the Affiliating University and

Management. Except for the curricula, all other factors are beyond the purview of HEC.

HEC has taken up the issue of Affiliated Colleges as a challenge and included it in TESP as a

Disbursement Linked Indicator (DLI 4). Acad. Division of HEC has developed a Manual of

Guidelines based on Minimum Quality Standards (MQS) to be followed by the Affiliating

universities for Quality Assurance. However, these Standards are primarily for the purpose of

granting affiliation to colleges, similar to the Eligibility Requirements and Standards for

Accreditation followed by Middle States Commission on Higher Education, USA.

The HEC Minimum Quality Standards outlining major areas to be focused for the evaluation

of quality, effectiveness and future development of affiliated colleges are given below:

Standard 1: Vision, Mission and Goals (05%)

Standard 2: Academic Programs and Evaluation (10%)

Standard 3: Student Admission and Progression (10%)

Standard 4: Academic Faculty and Non-Academic Staff (10%)

Standard 5: Physical Infrastructure, Academic Facilities and Learning Resources (20%)

Standard 6: Organization, Governance and Financial Management (20%)

Standard 7: Research (03%)

Standard 8: Public Disclosure and Transparency (15%)

Standard 9: Community Link & Outreach (07%)

Each Affiliating university has constituted Affiliation Committee as per Statutes, consisting

senior faculty members, administrative staff and In-charge Quality Enhancement Cell. The

Affiliation Committee visits the colleges applying for affiliation and subsequently for

adherence to the prescribed Standards. However, according to the World Bank study (2011),

this is only a loose regulatory system. Affiliations are granted under political pressures or the

urge of the universities to raise income without developing proper facilities to monitor

quality of education imparted by the affiliated colleges.

HEC undertook a detailed study under TESP (2014) to assess the level of adherence to the

MQS by 242 Affiliated Colleges as given in the following Table.

It is interesting to note that out of the 6 colleges that fall in the “W” category (Excellent), 4

were from Balochistan province while, in AJK , none of the colleges included in the study

was in the substandard categories “Y” and “Z”. Overall, about 29% of the colleges lie in the

“Z” category i.e. unsatisfactory.

HEC has taken another major step for training of Principals, Vice –Principals and Senior

teaching staff of the colleges on MQS issues. So far, 280 persons have undergone this

training but this number is insignificant compared with the total number.

HEC is now undertaking a detailed study on Affiliated Colleges under TESP to assess the

current situation of Affiliated Colleges with the objective of formulating Recommendations

for improving the quality of education in Affiliated Colleges. Findings and Recommendation

on QA aspects of the Affiliated Colleges based on various studied and data collected from

QECs are given below.

9.3.2 Findings

As is highlighted in the World Bank Report No. 47, quality of Affiliated Colleges is the

weakest link in the Higher Education sector. In Pakistan, survey of 242 Affiliated Colleges

based on Minimum Quality Standards indicated that performance of 29% of the surveyed

colleges was “unsatisfactory” (HEC report for 2013-14 on DLI 4).

The QA system is non- existent/very weak at all tiers of management of Affiliated Colleges.

HEC has not assigned the responsibility of QA to any officer in QAA-QAD. The person

looking after affairs of Affiliated Colleges in the Acad. Division of HEC is mainly

responsible for curriculum development. The provincial HEDs have not taken up the

responsibility of colleges yet.

Only 8 QECs out of 14 responded to the query if the university had any mechanism of QA

for Affiliated Colleges. The answer from 43% QECs and 14% non-QEC respondents was

“Yes” while 14% of the QECs and 7% non-QEC respondents said “No” and 43% of QECs

and 79% of the non-QEC respondents did not respond (Annex. XIX).

Three QEC respondents out of the 14 informed that the university had notified quality

standards in addition to the HEC Guidelines while another 3 said ‘No’ in reply to this query

and 8 did not respond.

Similarly, 3 QECs informed that the colleges not meeting the standards were de-affiliated

immediately while 4 QECs said that they were given time to make up deficiencies. All QECs

informed that not a single college had been de-affiliated in the past 5 years because of non-

compliance to the standards.

Apart from the Affiliation Committee, the universities have no mechanism of looking after

the affairs of the Affiliated Colleges. QECs of universities are not dealing with the QA

system of the affiliated colleges while there is no QEC at the college level. The QEC of a

college as mentioned in the Draft Report of the Consultant Affiliated Colleges was actually

an informal committee comprising teachers which looked after the matters like cleanliness

and attendance of teachers in classes (Consultant Affiliated Colleges, personal

communication).

The private Group of Colleges was found to be more conscious about quality aspect of the

franchised colleges in the Group.

Affiliation branch is staffed in the Registrar’s office and is involved in processing of

applications for affiliation while the Controller’s office is responsible for conduct of

examinations. Affiliation Committee makes site visits to the colleges to make

recommendations on the applications for affiliation. It rarely makes subsequent visits of

quality checks to determine if the MQS were being met.

Due to the increase in the number of affiliated colleges there is heavy workload on the

Affiliation Committee and offices of the Registrar and Controller of Examination leading to a

loose regulatory control. Many a times the universities relax conditions of affiliation, e.g.

establishment of functional Governing Councils is not ensured.

HEC has included improvement of College education as DLI 4 in the Tertiary Education

Support Project supported by the World Bank.

Provincial governments of the Punjab and KPK have created Endowments specifically for

the improvement of educational standards of the public sector Affiliated Colleges. They have

allocated funds mainly for faculty development and provision of facilities at colleges and

provision of laptops.

As mentioned in the Draft Report of the Consultant Affiliated Colleges, the public sector

colleges are accountable to their respective Directorates of Education for quality education.

However, the quality checking is primarily based upon the reporting of clerks in colleges and

random visits of Directors (or representative) to the colleges.

The colleges adhere to HEC’s standards for grant of post graduate degrees.

A perusal of the list of colleges Affiliated by different universities provided by Ms. Amana

Qayyum of HEC shows that University of Sargodha which is relatively a young university

affiliated maximum number of colleges (463) including colleges located in major cities like

Lahore, Rawalpindi, Faisalabad and DI Khan (KPK province).

The colleges of Teachers Education in Punjab refused to get accreditation from NACTE, the

Accreditation Council established by HEC.

World Bank report mentioned high rate of unemployment of graduates in Pakistan. The

graduate unemployment rate in 2005/6 was 7%, which was higher than the overall

unemployment rate of 6%. In 2007/8 this rate was 16.2% which was much higher than the

rest of the educational levels.

9.3.3 Recommendations

Quality Assurance system needs to be established/strengthened immediately at all tiers of

management i.e. HEC, Affiliating universities and the Affiliated Colleges as follows:

1. HEC may immediately assign the responsibility of Quality Assurance of Affiliated

Colleges to a senior level officer in QAA-QAD along with adequate resources, while

the curriculum development may remain with the Acad. Division. HEC needs to

strengthen its relevant section to undertake regular monitoring of the working of the

Affiliation Committees.

2. At universities, a separate Desk with enough resources may be established in the QECs

to look after the QA aspects of the Affiliated Colleges such as review and monitoring of

the implementation of quality criteria by the colleges. This Desk should serve as a

liaison office for colleges, HEC, Affiliation Committee of the University and offices of

Registrar and Controller of Examinations at the university.

3. At the college level, a system of IQA, similar to the universities, needs to be established

urgently. At least one person from the academia should be designated exclusively to

implement the quality criteria and conduct Self- Assessment reviews periodically.

Based on survey under DLI 4, immediate steps may be taken by the provincial governments

to improve quality of the colleges with “unsatisfactory” performance i.e. 29% of the colleges

included in the survey. The survey may be extended to 100% of the colleges in coordination

with the provincial authorities.

As recommended in the World Bank Report, merging of colleges, clustering of colleges or

even closing down of colleges with “unsatisfactory” performance should be considered on

priority.

Good leadership needs to be developed at the College level keeping in view the model of

defunct Govt. College, Lahore. The scope of Training Programs of HEC for Principals/senior

faculty may be extended to include leadership aspects.

Universities may reduce their reliance on Affiliation fees for revenue generation and strictly

apply the Affiliation Criteria to all colleges and de-affiliate colleges not meeting the

standards.

As recommended by the Consultant Affiliated Colleges, affiliation by the universities may be

restricted to certain geographical area for which some principles may be developed by HEC.

The provincial governments may consider to assign the responsibility of affiliated colleges to

the Higher Education Department on the pattern of HEC-Universities relationship, to fortify

College education. It should focus especially on the Quality of education in colleges.

Provincial Departments and HEC should arrange trainings of the teaching staff in colleges

based on Course contents along with the Pedagogical skills.

The provincial governments should make the accreditation of Teachers Education Colleges

by NACTE mandatory.

Semester system may be introduced in all colleges and suitable mechanism may be devised

for conduct of examination by the university.

Curricula may be revised in consultation with representatives of colleges to discourage rote

learning and encourage critical thinking and problem solving.

9.4 EXTERNAL DEGREE PROGRAMS

9.4.1 Background / Quality Assurance system

As mentioned earlier, use of “External Degree” mode of education in HEIs is inevitable to

meet demand for higher degrees. Also, another very important mode of education is of

“Private students” who only register with an HEI to be able to appear in the examination.

HEC feels that these students need to be grouped with the External Degree students for

improving their facilitation and quality of education (see Project Objectives of PC-1 of HEC

for Establishment of Directorates of Distance Education).

The information gathered by the Consultant External Degree Programs about the enrolment

in these programs and registration of private students for 5 selected universities is given in

the following Table.

Session wise Enrolment in distance education and private candidates

Enrolment Enrolment Enrolment

Enrolment Name of University (2011-2013) (2012-2014) (2013-2015) (2014-

2016) Distance Private Distance Private Distance Private Distance Private

University three 31452 37035 4616 43174 6872 University two 210 13081 112 13209 111 11810 19

University four 1472 43235 1240 39072 1893 35429 1512

University one 23 63 University five 331 371 316

The universities prefer to enroll students in Postgraduate Programs although many students

are also enrolled in undergraduate programs and diploma courses. It is worth noting that the

number of private students registered for examination purpose was manifold higher than the

students enrolled in the External Degree Programs of these universities.

The Consultant has reported the following pattern of enrolment in Master degree programs

of one of the selected universities.

MPhil programs (with Enrolment) Offered by University three

Sr # Subjects Enrolment (2014-2016)

1 Arabic 52

2 Commerce 42

3 communication study 42

4 Criminology 18

5 Education 64

6 English 50

7 Geography 57

8 History 53

9 International Relation 72

10 Islamic Studies 38

11 Library Science 46

12 Mass Com 60

13 Mathematics 46

14 Pak Studies 64

15 Political science 23

16 Psychology 98

17 Public Administration 22

18 Sociology 55

19 Special Education 54

20 Urdu 16

Total 972

The HEC approved a PC-I for establishing Directorates of Distance Education in the

following 6 universities to improve quality of education of External students. However,

another 7 universities including one private university have established Directorates of

Distance Education under the direction of HEC.

1. University of the Punjab, Lahore.

2. University of Peshawar, Peshawar.

3. University of Karachi, Karachi.

4. University of Sind, Jamshoro.

5. Gomal University, D.I. Khan.

6. Bahauddin Zakariya university, Multan

The PC-I had the following objectives:

1. To facilitate private candidates at Graduate and Master level who cannot afford the

facility of getting education as regular students.

2. To narrow the quality gap between private and regular students.

3. To increase the success ratio of private students in the examinations and to ultimately

improve the opportunities of employment for them.

4. To build capacity of large public sector universities to deliver quality education to

private students.

5. To build capacity of universities to deliver material for private students.

6. To streamline administrative procedures for provision of quality education to private

students.

The Project life was of two years and was to be converted into recurring budget of

universities afterwards. This PC-1 had the following 3 Phases for completion:

a. Phase I.

Six Directorates of Distance Education will be established at six larger universities

during this phase.

b. Phase II.

The HEC project unit and task force will work for capacity building of faculty

members involved in the task and staff of Directorates of Distance Education.

c. Phase III.

Learning packages and curriculum/content development will be done during this

phase.

Apparently, the HEC tried to build structure for an effective “Distance” mode of education

and quality assurance mechanism specifically for education of “Distant” and private students.

Unfortunately, the activity did not bring the desired results due to lack of continuous

financial support from HEC and proper set up at HEC for follow-up and monitoring of

External Degree programs of the universities.

9.4.2 Findings

The phenomenon of starting External degree Programs by the universities engaged in on-

campus education is new one in Pakistan. These universities had no previous experience of

imparting Distance Education (DE) or faculty trained in DE. These universities did not create

adequate facilities before starting External Degree programs. Apparently, the universities

thought this mode of education was a good source of additional income for the university.

The ‘Private students’ was another important source of income for the universities but the

universities did not contribute in any manner to facilitate these students except for

conducting their exams for the award of degree. No instruction material was provided by the

university to these students.

HEC does not have any effective set up for overseeing the Quality issues of the External

Degree Programs or Private students. However, HEC took an important step of establishing

Directorates of Distance Education in 6 universities under the Development program (PC-1)

and encouraging other universities for the same. After the completion of the Project, there

was no follow-up program.

The responsibility of looking after QA issues of External Degree programs is assigned to a

Deputy Director in QAD along with many other responsibilities and he, therefore, is not able

to give attention to the issues of DE. In response to the Questionnaire sent to him, he

informed that he was not satisfied with the mechanism of QA for these programs.

At the university level, the Directorate of External Degree programs (EDP) is supposed to

look after all aspects of the program including the QA aspects.

Information gathered by the Consultant EDP shows that that there is great diversity of actual

mechanism used for Distance Education. Some universities had established Centers for face

to face contact with the External students but most of the universities did not establish this

facility. Some of the universities provided face to face contact facility at the main campus by

assigning the responsibility to their regular faculty on weekly /twice a week basis. In rare

cases, faculty was exclusively hired for the purpose.

Some faculty members complained about the difficulties faced in the ‘face to face’ teaching

at the university campus at the weekends as the facilities of IT labs, library and attendants

were not available.

The strong point of the External Degree Program was that the admission requirements, the

curricula followed and the examination system followed was exactly the same as for the on-

campus students. All Rules and Regulations of Semester system were strictly applied to the

External students including submission of Assignments. The private students were, however,

examined only under the Annual Examamination system.

The HEC has directed the universities to conduct MPhil programs at the main campus only.

According to the Consultant EDPs most of the Directors felt that Distance Education through

ICT based learning was helpful in improving its quality.

Learning Management System (LMS) was being used in universities where Directorates of

Distance Education were functional. In most cases, there were technological problems in the

use of LMS due to lack of training of teachers for interacting with the students and the

technical persons to run and the information was not being updated on daily basis.

Response to the Questionnaire sent to QECs about QA for External students was poor and

only few QECs and very few non-QEC persons responded to various questions (see Annex.

XIX).Out of the 4 QECs who informed that their universities had EDP, 2 informed that they

had special Cell for Quality Assurance of EDP. However, all of them were satisfied with the

QA mechanism of Distance Education. Apparently, these data are not dependable.

9.4.3 Recommendations

HEC’s Role

In addition to the regular students enrolled in HEIs, HEC needs to give immediate attention

to the QA issues of the students of External Degree Programs, Affiliated Colleges and

Private students. Either the role of PD (QECs) may be extended to “all” students by

upgrading the office of PD under a Director (QECs) or a separate “Desk” may established for

the above three categories in the QAA-QAD Division.

HEC needs to set aside sufficient funds for improving quality of education through the above

modes of education as these students outnumbered the students enrolled in mainstream

education of the universities.

HEC should immediately develop Guidelines, Criteria and Manuals for implementation of

QA system in HEIs for the students enrolled under the above 3 modes of education. HEC

should urgently arrange video conferences with the Heads of QECs and Directorates of

Distance Education to spotlight the urgency of QA for the 3 modes of education.

HEC should increase its capability of providing training to the staff of HEIs for ICT based

learning and use of LMS, or outsource it to selected Teachers Training Institutes for quick

results.

HEIs’ Role

Universities having no External Degree programs, may give the responsibility of QA of

Affiliated Colleges and private students to a separate “Desk” established in QEC. However,

in the universities having Directorates of Distance Education, the QA responsibility for the

three modes of education may be assigned to a new Desk created in the Directorate of

Distance Education.

The Directorates of Distance Education need to be made effective through proper training

and strengthening with human and financial resources to deliver their responsibilities. They

should be equipped with functional LMS.

The universities must ensure dissemination of information to private students in time by

regularly updating it on the university and college websites. The instruction material for

External students may be uploaded on the website for the benefit of private students.

At least two ‘face to face’ meetings with a Mentor at the main campus/ Centers i.e., one soon

after the registration and the other about two weeks before the final examination may be

ensured for the guidance of the private students.

HEC, in consultation with the provincial governments, may develop the strategy of taking

strict action against the HEIs who do not follow HEC’s Guidelines for Distance Education,

private students and affiliation of colleges.

10. ASSESSMENT OF THE COORDINATION BETWEEN QUALITY

ASSURANCE AND QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK

10.1 Background

Because of the urgency to develop an agreed system of cross-border acceptance of

qualifications/degrees and employability of the graduates, development of Qualifications

Framework and issues of Distance Education have been the hot topics of discussion in

various International Conferences held during the past few years.

National Qualifications Framework is defined as a ‘national instrument for the classification

of qualifications according to a set of criteria for specified levels of learning achieved’. It

aims to integrate and coordinate national qualifications subsystems and improves the

transparency, access, progression and Quality of Qualifications in relation to the labor market

and civil society. It aims at achieving relatively uniform standards of learning outcomes

worldwide for each recognized qualification.

National Qualifications Framework provides clearly defined levels of Knowledge, Skills and

Competencies to be acquired by each graduate that are easy to comprehend by students,

employers and human resource development policy makers.

The ninth session of the Committee of the Regional Convention on the Recognition of

Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific was held in

Seoul in the year 2007, while the Report of the Department of Education, Employment and

Workplace Relations of the Australian Government on Recognition of Higher Education

Qualifications across the Brisbane Communique Region was published in March, 2008. The

Recommendation # 4 of the Committee was to ‘Support the development of National

Qualification Frameworks’.

Bologna initiative resulted in major reforms of higher education in many countries and more

countries are voluntarily using the process to promote inter-intra-country mobility of students

and credit hours, promotion of collaborative research and relatively uniform standards and

learning outcomes. In 2014, over 100 countries have developed their National Qualifications

Frameworks for Higher Education.

The main objectives of the 1999 Bologna Declaration included:

(i) Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees

(ii) Adoption of two main cycles system (Undergraduate/Graduate)

(iii) Establish a system of credits transfer (ECTS)

(iv) Promote mobility by overcoming legal recognition and administrative obstacles

(v) Promote cooperation in Quality Assurance.

In 2010, the Prague Declaration of the European Ministers of Education included the goal of

mutual recognition of degrees offered by recognized universities as one of the objectives. It

also called for promoting Quality of instruction at all higher education institutions.

Objectives of the NQF

The NQF has been structured to:

• Help learners to make informed decisions about the qualification required

• Help the employers to assess what qualification a candidate has achieved

• Help in establishing the national standards of qualifications

• Provide a basis for comparison of qualifications at national as well as international

level

• Help in international recognition of academic qualifications

• Facilitate the trans-national mobility of graduates and learners

• Be used as an instrument for qualitative reforms in education system

• Help promote the linkages between industry and education system

The NQF encompasses a comprehensive list of all quality assured qualifications in Pakistan.

Each accredited qualification offered in Pakistan has been assigned a level. It consists of

Entry Level 1 to Level 8, describing the difficulty of qualifications at each level.

Programs by levels and credit hours requirements of all qualifications in Pakistan are

summarized in the following Table, while the qualifications by number of years (old system)

are shown in the diagram.

Details of all Higher Education Qualifications in examples of Associate Degree, and 2-year

Bachelor (Pass) Degree Programs are given as follows.

It was observed in the study of World Bank (Discussion Paper Report No. 47) that, according

to NUFFIC, the Bachelor (Pass) Degree in Arts, Science and Commerce awarded in Pakistan,

is only comparable to a Dutch VWO diploma and a Bachelor (Hons.) Degree is comparable

to only 1 year of the university education (WO) in the Netherlands. However, as confirmed

by the HRD Division of HEC, the scholars sent for higher studies to various countries

including Netherlands were given admission in MPhil on the basis of 4-year Degree, and in

PhD on the basis of MPhil awarded by universities of Pakistan.

10.2 Methodology

Information was gathered from International publications and mainly from the HEC

publication of ‘National Qualifications Framework of Pakistan 2015 sent by the DD NQF at

QAD, HEC who, however, was unable to respond to the questions asked by the Author. The

topic was also discussed with Dr. Mahmud-ul-Hassan Butt, Adviser/Consultant Chairperson

Office, who gave his input.

10.3 Findings

HEC has made good progress in the development of National Qualifications Framework,

published it on HEC Website and shared it with HEIs which is a remarkable achievement.

National Qualifications Frame Work and Quality Assurance

Higher Education Commission of Pakistan started developing a Qualifications Framework

for Higher Education in 2009. It has used the Bologna Principles to bring about Qualitative

Reforms in higher education and is consistently striving to implement the National

Qualifications Framework. The new revised version of the Framework is designed to further

sustain the Qualitative Improvement of programs of higher education qualifications offered

in the country and one of the major objectives of the NQF is that it will be used as an

instrument for Qualitative Reforms in education system. Some of the important steps taken

by HEC for ensuring quality of qualifications are as under.

1. HEC has developed criteria for award of MPhil and PhD degrees which are strictly

applied by all institutions awarding these degrees. The HEIs are required to adhere to

the rules, regulations and Quality Assurance criteria laid down by HEC and the

respective Accreditation Councils, and the compliance is regularly monitored.

2. Quality of Undergraduate degree is maintained through an IQA mechanism of Self-

Assessment and EQA mechanism through Program Reviews and accreditation by

relevant Accreditation Councils.

3. The 2-yearundergraduate degree has been converted into 4-year degree program.

4. Semester system for the undergraduate BS degree program (8 semesters, 124-140

credit hours) has been introduced in the universities.

5. The old 2-year undergraduate program has been converted into with Associate

Degree programs of 68 credit hours. This intervention opens the door to initial level

employment and further study to complete the 4-year degree program.

6. The Framework has clearly outlined the admission, retention and graduation

requirements for graduate programs.

7. For other Tertiary Education diplomas, and Secondary and Higher Secondary

qualifications etc, HEC relies on the Quality Assurance mechanisms adopted by the

relevant departments.

8. A National Qualifications Register is maintained by HEC having lists of all the

chartered Higher Education Degree Awarding Institutions and Programs offered by

them. It also includes detailed HEC approved policy on implementing semester-based

assessment of learning outcomes and grading to ensure Uniform Standards of Quality

of Qualifications offered by all chartered universities/DAIs and postgraduate degree

colleges.

The reliability of qualifications included in the National Qualifications Framework is

protected and maintained by legislation and Quality Assurance arrangements for

qualifications and authorized issuing organizations.

According to the NQF document, the NQF is protected by:

1. Legislation that provides for the accreditation of qualifications and organizations

authorized to issue qualifications by accrediting authorities.

2. Quality assurance arrangements for qualifications and authorized issuing

organizations.

3. Nationally consistent and correct use of qualification titles/Nomenclature.

The In-charge NQF program is working in the QA Division of the HEC to ensure a

meaningful coordination between NQF and Quality assurance program of the HEC.

Quality of all degree programs of the HEIs have IQA mechanism of Self-Assessment and

EQA mechanism through Program Reviews and accreditation by the relevant Accreditation

Councils to ensure that their graduates meet the standards of learning outcomes as per


The National Qualifications Register is being maintained by HEC.

The degrees awarded by universities in Pakistan are recognized for admissions in foreign

universities in relevant higher degree programs.

10.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

There is good coordination between Quality Assurance Agenda of the HEC and the National


HEC has developed the NQF and the National Qualification Register on the basis of

information obtained from the concerned Institutions and published data. It has relied on the

mechanisms of Quality Assurance adopted by the concerned departments/organizations.

It is recommended that Third Party Validation (TPV) may be undertaken to verify

authenticity of NQF and NQ Register.

An awareness campaign about Qualification Framework should be started to train concerned

personnel in HEIs about requirements of QF.

11. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

National Quality Assurance Committee should play its role more actively. It should guide the

QAA-QAD about new requirements of Quality Assurance of the Higher Education sector of

Pakistan in line with the International trends, while keeping the local perspective in view.

A holistic approach of QA at the HEI level needs to be followed. QEC office needs to be

strengthened and made responsible for all QA activities including awareness campaigns,

documentation, Institutional review, Program reviews, liaison with ACs, and International

bodies concerned with QA system of HEI.

The baseline input of resources for QA program should be increased immediately. QAA-

QAD at HEC needs to be strengthened manifold to meet the challenges of expansion in the

HE sector and new initiatives being taken by HEC for EQA.

Steps may be considered by NQAC/HEC to make QAA an autonomous body to oversee all

QA programs including GOP-Accreditation Councils for effective implementation of QA

program in the country.

The Vice-Chancellors/Rectors need to attend briefing sessions by NQAC to understand the

real worth of QA program and its requirements at their universities. They need to be

convinced that relatively small investment in QA program shall bring large dividends in

terms of quality of their graduates.

The office of QEC should be made highly respectable by taking suitable steps such as

making a Provost as head of the QA program at the university and by increasing its human

and financial resources.

Extra burden on QECs may be reduced. For example, Annual Ranking of Universities may

be changed to Ranking after every 3 years to reduce burden of data collection by the QECs.

High level of awareness among students about the fact that implementing QA program in the

university will have very high impact on their employment prospects will greatly empower

the students to generate internal pressure in the university to implement QA programs.

Both the low quality of students entering the universities and increased number of admissions

disproportionate to the facilities in the universities is a serious issue. Universities need to

properly weigh the advantage of increase in income through increased admissions against the

impact on quality of its graduates.

Practical training at undergraduate level in very weak and ‘particularly’ undergraduate labs

are poorly equipped urgent steps are needed to remove this deficiency.

QAA-QAD needs to revise its Quality Standards and Manuals after every 5 years or so and

publish new Editions.

Documentation status at the HEI level and HEC level is weak. Universities may be provided

Campus Management and Learning Management Solutions (LMS) for a satisfactory

documentation process at HEIs.

A Task Force may be developed to address the issues of Distance Education, Affiliated

colleges and Private students, and status of the Recommendations of the previous Reviews

may be examined.

All existing Councils including GOP-Councils may be pursued to have their external

evaluation by International bodies.

Many countries including China, Japan & Vietnam have established Institutes of QA.QAA

needs to expand its role and have a research unit of its own, or have the ability to outsource

some research projects to experts in QA Institutes such as Institute of Quality and

Technology Management, Univ. of the Punjab, Lahore.

Some countries have implemented mandatory accreditation of each academic program. HEC

may consider it as a future strategy.

Many countries are doing accreditation of both undergraduate and postgraduate programs. In

Pakistan, we may start with Accreditation/Rating of PhD programs.

12. REFERENCES

ABET. 2000. Self-Study Questionnaire for Review of Engineering Programs.

Batool, Z. and R.H. Qureshi. 2005. Good Practices for Quality Assurance for Accreditation

Councils in Pakistan. Higher Education Commission, Islamabad.

Batool, Z., R.H. Qureshi and A. Rauof. 2010. Performance Evaluation Standards for the HEIs.

Higher Education Commission, Islamabad.

HEC (Acad. Division). MQS Guidelines Manual for Affiliated Colleges. Higher Education

Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad.

HEC and World Bank TESP. 2014. DLI-4 Performance Evaluation Report for the year 2013-

14. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad.

Lee, L.S.Y. 2011. Affiliated Colleges in South Asia: Is Quality Expansion Possible? World

Bank Discussion Paper Report No.47.

Rana, R.A. and N. Reid. 2009. Dimensions of Quality Assurance in Higher Education. In:

Rauof et al. Quality in Higher Education-Challenges and Practices. Press and

Publications Dept., University of the Punjab, Lahore. Pp 39.

Rauof, A. 2006. Self-Assessment Manual. Higher Education Commission, Islamabad.

Rauof, A. 2010. Institutional Performance Evaluation Process – Manual for eleven Standards.

Higher Education Commission, Islamabad.

Reid, N. 2009. Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Pakistan-Focus on the Learner. In:

Rauof et.al. Quality in Higher Education-Challenges and Practices. Press and

Publications Dept., University of the Punjab, Lahore. Pp 91.

13. RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS OF THE REVIEWER

13.1 Comment

The weakest parts of the study are those dealing with External Degree Programs and

Affiliated Colleges-admittedly areas where data are missing. The Chapter on the linkages

between QA and Qualifications Framework is also very light.

13.2 Response

Early coordination between the Author of the Report and Consultants of two other studies i.e.

Quality Assurance of Affiliated Colleges and External Degree programs as envisaged in the

study did not become possible. After getting access to the Draft Reports of the two

Consultants and consulting other Reports, the Author has rewritten the Chapter on Quality

Assurance of Affiliated Colleges and External Degree programs which have been greatly

strengthened. The Chapter on linkages between QA and QF has also been beefed up,

although HEC sources were unable to provide any further help in this regard.

13.3 Comment

More in depth discussions would have been welcome on (i) the role of NQAC, (ii) the degree

of autonomy of the QAA and (iii) the interaction between QAA and QAD in HEC.

13.4 Response

(i) Role of NQAC

NQAC was constituted as a policy making and advisory committee for overall Quality

Assurance program of the HEC. It was first constituted in 2003 i.e. soon after the

establishment of HEC with Dr Abdul Rauof as its Chairman and various Vice- Chancellors

as its members. NQAC held regular meetings and provided an overall framework of QA at

the HEC level. All QA initiatives of HEC such as establishment of QECs and QAA were

placed before the NQAC for approval. Dr Rauof (Chairman NQAC), in his personal capacity,

contributed a lot in preparation of Manuals for implementation of Quality Criteria and their

implementation which were also approved by the NQAC.

In 2015, after a lapse of 12 years, the HEC has revised the constitution of the Committee as

follows.

1. Prof. Dr. Abdul Rauof (Patron)

2. Engr. Muhammad Asghar, Rector, NUST, Islamabad (Chairman)

3. Dr. Javed Ashraf, Vice-Chancellor, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad

4. Prof. Dr.Habib Ahmad,Acting Vice-Chancellor, Hazara University, Hazara

5. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Hafizullah, Vice-Chancellor, Khyber Medical University,

Peshawar

6. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Aslam Uqaili, Vice-Chancellor, Mehran University of

Engineering &Technology, Jamshoro

7. Prof. Dr. Mujahid Kamran, Vice-Chancellor, University of Punjab, Lahore

8. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Qaiser, Vice-Chancellor, University of Karachi, Karachi

9. Prof. Dr. Rasul Jan, Vice-Chancellor, university of Peshawar, Peshawar

10. Prof. Dr. Javeid Iqbal, Vice-Chancellor, University of Baochistan, Quetta

11. Prof. Dr. Iqrar Ahmed Khan, Vice-Chancellor, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad

12. Maj Gen (R) Prof. Muhammad Aslam, Vice-Chancellor, University of Health

Sciences, Lahore

13. Prof. Dr. Fazal Ahmad Khalid, Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and

Technology, Lahore

14. Prof. Dr. Razia Sultana, Vice-Chancellor, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women

University, Peshawar

15. Ms. Shanaz Wazir Ali, President, Shaheed Zulifqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science

and Technology, Karachi

16. Prof. Dr. Sohail H Naqvi, Vice-Chancellor, Lahore University of Management

Sciences,Lahore.

Ex-Officio Members from HEC:

17. The Executive Director, HEC, Islamabad

18. The Head of Quality Assurance Division

19. The Head of Quality Assurance Agency

As can be seen, Rectors/Vice Chancellors of all the major universities of the country are

represented on the NQAC which is a very good move politically, as it will greatly increase

acceptability of decisions of the NQAC by the universities of the country. The previous

Chairman of the Committee Dr Abdul Rauof is the Patron of the new Committee which is

also a welcome step as it will provide continuity to the philosophy and activities of NQAC.

However, the new Chairman will have to ensure regular meetings of the Committee and

consider immediate measures such as development of a roadmap for Quality Assurance

Program for Affiliated Colleges, External Degree Programs and Private students. Also, it

must deliberate immediately on the future role of QAA.

(ii) The Degree of Autonomy of the QAA

QAA was established in the light of the clause 10 (e) of the HEC ordinance which reads as

follows:

“Set up national or regional evaluation Councils or authorize any existing Council or

similar body to carry out accreditation of institutions including their departments, faculties

and disciplines by giving them appropriate ratings. The Commission shall help build

capacity of existing Councils or bodies in order to enhance the reliability of the evaluation

carried out by them.”

The degree of autonomy of QAA is a sensitive issue which has many political ramifications

and implications. HEC visualized QAA as a body having an overarching role for

implementing and monitoring of QA program in the HEIs through existing Accreditation

Councils and establishment of new Councils.

At the moment, the relationship between the QAA and GOP-Councils as well as the legal

authority of HEC-Councils is vague and unclear.

In view of the 18th Amendment in the Constitution of Pakistan, the provinces may not

endorse any legislative move to provide the required level of autonomy to QAA. HEC has

not been able to provide required funds even for optimal functioning of the QAA in the

present shape, while an Autonomous QAA will need much more funds to function properly

and discharge its responsibilities satisfactorily. I would recommend that the issue of degree

of autonomy of the QAA may be thoroughly deliberated in NQAC before taking any step in

that direction.

However, in my view, the future QAA should look after affairs of HEC-Councils including

issues of their legal authority, establish new Councils, develop meaningful coordination with

GOP-Councils, coordinate with provincial authorities for improving quality of education in

Affiliated Colleges, Distance Education students and private students, improve rigor and

monitor EQA system for HEIs and academic programs, undertake review of QECs and

Accreditation Councils, review Quality Criteria and Manuals developed by HEC and thus

play an over-arching role for implementing QA measures in the HE sector. The IQA

management through QECs may be may transferred to QAD.

(iii) The Interaction between QAA and QAD

Historically, in view of the lack of legislative and financial support, QAA was housed in the

QA&LI Division of HEC which was headed by Adviser (QA&LI). Later on, a Managing

Director was appointed In-charge of the QAA with the responsibility of establishing

Accreditation Councils. Keeping in view heavy workload of QA&LI ( presently QAD) and

relatively less workload of QAA, the responsibilities were redistributed between the two

entities. Thus, QAD and QAA are practically sharing work load with each other in

undertaking responsibilities of various QA programs of HEC sharing. I would consider them

as one unit in the current form to be named as QAA-QAD. However, looking after QECs as

an instrument of IQA by QAA and monitoring of QA programs (EQA) indicate conflict of

interest for QAA in the excising set-up. This issue should also be discussed by NQAC along

with the issue of autonomy for QAA and the exact relationship between QAA and QAD will

depend on the future rote of QAA.

Annexure I : Questionnaire for QECs

IMPLEMENTATION, VALUE, IMPACT & FOLLOW-UP OF

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWS (Including IPES)

Personal Information

{of each individual filling this proforma i.e. Registrar(Reg),Focal person (FP), two senior

faculty members, Director/in charge (QEC) } (The person responsible to answer is indicated

against each Question)

Name: ………………………………………………………..

Name of University/Department:…………………………..

Designation :………………………………………………….

E-Mail Address:………………………………………………

Cell No.:……………………………………………………….

I: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWS

Who should respond (Please give date when review was carried out)

(all people mentioned below)

A: Implementation of Institutional Performance Standards (IPES)

FP, Reg , Two senior

faculty members & QEC

A1:What is %age (approximate) of people aware of IPES & IPES

Reviews?

(a) Faculty Members…………………………. Percent

(b) Administrative staff……………………… Percent

(c) Students………………………………….. Percent

Reg & QEC A2: What attributes were considered for the selection of Focal

Person?

(Please use circles to answer)

(a) Seniority

(b) Relevant Experience

(c) Relevance of job

FP A3:Who trained/briefed the Focal Person?

(a)HEC

(b)Institution/University

FP & QEC A4: What Procedure is adopted to implement the recommendations

of the Review Panel?

(a) By notification after approval of the competent authority

(b) Monitoring of implementation

Reg, FP,& QEC A5:Which recommendations have been implemented/are under

process for implementation?

(Please give list)

Reg & FP A6: Which Recommendation of the Review Panel was not

implemented and why?

(a) Due to lack of funds

(b) Due to lack of infrastructure

(c) Difficult to implement

(d) Conflict with the policy of the Institution

(e) Any other (please specify)

Reg, FP, QEC & two senior faculty members

A7: What should be the cycle of Review?

(a) After every two years

(b) After every three years

(c) After every five years

Reg, FP, QEC & two

senior faculty members

A8:What are your three most important recommendations for

improving the implementation and Review process?

(1) ………………………………………

(2) ………………………………………

(3) ………………………………………

B: Value

Reg, FP, QEC & two


B1: What is your perception about the Value of the Review?

(a) No value

(b) Valuable

(c) Highly valuable

Reg, FP & two


B2: How did you determine the value of the Review?

(a) Your own perception

(b) Your own experience

(c) Discussion with colleagues

(d) Any survey conducted

Reg., FP, QEC & two


B3:Which aspect /recommendation of the Review Panel you

found very useful and consider that it should be implemented

immediately?

(a) Documentation against performance criteria &

preparation of Self-Assessment Report

(b) Administrative aspec t

(c) Teaching aspect

(d) Research aspect

(e) Financial aspect

(f) Social aspect

(g) Any other (please specify)

Reg, FP & two


B4: Are you satisfied with the outcome of the Review?

(Yes/No)

C: Impact

Reg, FP, QEC & two


C1: improvement Which recommendation of the Review Panel

has given major improvement? (Please mention the

recommendation & nature of the with documentary evidence if

any)

(a) Recommendation no………………….

(i) Improvement in Administration

(ii) Teaching/Research

(iii) Financial management

(iv) Planning

(v) Any other (please specify)

(b) Recommendation No……………….. etc.

(Add more recommendations if appropriate)

Reg & FP C2: Did Review help in improving quality of University

Portfolio Report (UPR)?

(a) Yes

(b) No

Reg , FP & QEC C3: Did it help improving Ranking of the University?

(a) Yes

(b) No

Reg, FP, QEC & two


C4: Did it help in working of university?

(a) Yes

(b) No

Reg, FP, QEC & two


C5: Was there any other major impact of the Review?

(please specify

D: Follow Up

Reg & FP D1: Please describe briefly the follow up mechanism on

recommendations of the Review Panel as adopted by your

university

…………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………

Reg & FP D2: Who is the responsible for the follow up at the

university level?

(a) VC office

(b) Registrar

(c) Focal person

(d) QEC

Reg & FP D3: Did you get any letter from QAA (HEC) for follow up

on recommendations of the Review? (Please attach copies of

the letters from HEC)

(a) Yes

(b) No

Reg & FP D4: Did you respond to the follow up letters of HEC?

(please attach copy of the response)

(a) Yes

(b) No

Reg & FP D5: Please provide copies of letters written to concerned

department/people on follow up action on

recommendations of the Review Panel.

(II) PROGRAM REVIEWS

(Please give date when each Review was carried out)

A: Implementation of Program Reviews

QEC, Reg & two


A1:What is the % age (approximate) of people aware of Program

Reviews?

(a) Faculty members………………………Percent

(b) Students………………………………Percent

(c) Administrative staff…………………..Percent

QEC & Reg A2: Does the present Director/In charge of QEC work

whole time for the QEC?

(a) Yes

(b) No

QEC & Reg A3: How was Director/in charge QEC appointed?

(a) Selection against an advertised post

(b) Additional charge given to a faculty member to work part time

(c) Transfer of a faculty member to work whole time

QEC & Reg A4: What is the pay scale of the current full time Director/

in-charge QEC?

…………………………………………

QEC & Reg A5: What is the pay scale of the part time in charge QEC?

…………………………………………

QEC A6: Did Director/in charge QEC get any training from:

(a) HEC (Yes/No)

(b) University (Yes/No)

QEC & Reg A7: What is the full time staff other than Director/In

charge QEC currently employed in QEC.?

(please give name, designation and pay scale of each)

……………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………

QEC A8: How was the staff of QEC trained?

(a) Personal briefing

(b) Formal training by HEC

(c) Formal training by University

QEC A9: How were department representatives (Program team) trained for preparation of

Self Assessment Report of the program

(a) Personal briefing

(b) Formal training by HEC

(c) Formal training by University

QEC A10: What level of co-operation did you receive to complete

the Program Review cycle? (e. g. less than 25% , 25-50%,

75% or more than 75% against each)

(a) Dept. Chairman/in-charge program

(b) Faculty members

(c) Students

(d) Assessment teams

(e) Program teams

(f) Administration

QEC & Program

in-charge

A11: After how many years the same program is to be reviewed

again?

(a) 2 years

(b) 3 years

(c) 5 years

(d) No decision

QEC & Program

in-charge

A12: How did you select the Assessment Team?

(a) From other departments within the university

(b) From outside the university

QEC A13: How many programs were reviewed since

establishment of the (give date of establishment of QEC)

_____________________________________

QEC A14: When was your progress reviewed by HEC?

(give date)

……………………………………………………….

QEC A15: What is the grade (score) of QEC determined by

HEC?

………………………………………………………

QEC & Program

in-charge

A16: Which recommendations of the Assessment Team were

accepted by authorities?

(give list)

QEC & Program

in-charge

A17: What %age of recommendations are being implemented for

different programs?

(less than 25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, or more than 75%)

………………………………………………………….

QECA A18: What is the percentage of programs run by your

university Reviewed by HEC?

..………………………………………………………..

QEC & Program

in-charge

A19: What are the difficulties faced by QEC in undertaking

Program Reviews?

(mention level of difficulty e.g. small, medium or high)

(a) Capacity of the respective program/department

(Small/Medium/High)

(b) Lack of co-operation from Chairman/faculty member

(Small/Medium/High)

(c) Lack of human resources (Small/Medium/High)

(d) Lack of financial resources (Small/Medium/High)

B: Value

QEC & Program

in-charge & two senior

faculty members

B1: To what extent the Program Review is considered valuable

on overall basis by:

(a) Program in charge (low/medium/high)

(b) Faculty members (low/medium/high)

(c) Students (low/medium/high)

(d) University Admin. (low/medium/high)

QEC & Program


faculty members

B2: Was improvement observed due to the Review?

(Yes/No)

QEC & Program


faculty members

B3: What level of improvement took place in the program after

Review? (less than 25%,25-50%,75%,more than 75%)

QEC & Program


faculty members

B4: Do you consider that awareness about the quality issues

among

the faculty staff and students created by the Review had value?

(a) Yes

(b) No

QEC & Program


faculty members

B5: Are you satisfied with the outcome of the Review?

(a) Yes

(b) No

C:Impact

QEC & Program


faculty members

C1: Did the Review help is creating awareness about quality

issues of the program?

(a) Among faculty (Yes/No)

(b) Among students (Yes/No)

(c) Among administration (Yes/No)

QEC & Program


faculty members

C2: Was there any improvement in the conduct of the program

after the Review in terms of the following:

(a) Increase in: a1: Faculty (Yes/No)

a2; Space and facilities for offices, Labs.,

Lecture rooms (Please specify facilities) (Yes/No)

a3: Financial support from university (Yes/No)

(b) Better output of faculty:

b1: Teaching (Yes/No)

b2: Research publications (Yes/No)

b3: Regularity in classes (Yes/No)

b4: Better evaluation of teachers by students (Yes/No)

QEC, Reg C3: Was the grade/ranking of the QEC/HEI improved after

the completion of the Review?

(a) QEC (Yes/No)

(b) HEI (Yes/No)

D: FOLLOW UP

QEC & Program


faculty members

D1: Who is responsible for the follow up on the recommendations

of the Assessment Team?

(a) QEC (Yes/No)

(b) Program Team (Yes/No)

(c) In charge Program (Yes/No)

QEC D2: Did QEC write letter to Program Teams/In-charge

Program for implementing recommendations of the

Assessment Team?

(please provide copy of the letter) (Yes/No)

QEC

D3: Did QEC get response from the Program Team or In-

charge Program?

(Please provide copy of the response)

QEC D4: was the response:

(a) Prompt

(b) Delayed

(c) No Response

QEC D5: What difficulties did you face in the conduct and implementation of Program

Reviews?

(a) Capacity of the QEC (Yes/No)

(b) Lack of appropriate authority with

Director/in charge QEC (Yes/No)

(c) Slackness of Program in charge (Yes/No)

(d) Slackness of faculty members (Yes/No)

(e) High work load of QEC. (Yes/No)

(f) Less co-operation/support from

Administration (Yes/No)

(g) Finding appropriate Assessment Team (Yes/No)

(h) Less co-operation from Assessment Team (Yes/No)

E: Scope of improvement

QEC E1: Please give in order of priority actions that will bring

improvement in conduct of Program Reviews:

(a) Increase in permanent human resources of QEC.

(b) Proper training of Director and staff of QEC.

(c) Better status of Director/in charge QEC.

(d) Increase in financial allocation for QEC.

(e) Better training of Program Team (PT).

(f) Development of more elaborate guideline Manual for

conduct of Program Reviews.

(g) Better training of Program Assessment Teams.

(h) Increase in payment to Assessment Team.

F: Better “buy in” by faculty staff

QEC & two senior

faculty members

F: 1 Do you recommend the following for the better “buy in”?

(a) Running strong awareness campaigns for faculty staff

writing in letters and holding focused group meetings

emphasizing expected improvement quality of the

Program due to Self-Assessment and Review process

QEC, Reg & two senior

faculty members

(b) Incorporating the role of Program Reviews as agenda item in

Academic Council meetings once a year

VC/QEC & Reg (c) Improving status of the permanent Director, QEC by giving it scale

equal to a Professor.

VC/QEC & Reg (c) Improving status of the permanent Director, QEC by giving it scale

equal to a Professor.

VC/QEC & Reg (d) Appointing a permanent Director, QEC.

VC/QEC & Reg (e) The Director, QEC should report directly to the VC/Rector.

III SELF ASSESSMENT REVIEWS

A: Implementation

QEC A1: How many Self-Assessment Reviews have been

undertaken by HEI for the university/HEI?

(give date of each Review)

A2: How did the Review help:

(a) Improvement in teaching and research

(b) To prepare for Accreditation of programs

(c) Any other

(please specify)

QEC A2: Were the Self Assessment Reports prepared by

properly trained persons of:

(a) QEC (Yes/No)

(b) Focal person (Yes/No)

(c) Concerned Program in charge (Yes/No)

QEC A3: How was the information given in the SAR verified?

(a) By QEC (Yes/No)

(b) By Teams reviewing the program (Yes/No)

(c) By Accreditation Council (Yes/No)

QEC A4: Is Self-Assessment :

(a) A statutory Requirement except for the

Accreditation Purposes (Yes/No)

(b) HEC Directive (Yes/No)

(c) Initiative of university/institution (Yes/No)

B: OBJECTIVITY

QEC B1: Do you think SAR ( Self Assessment Report) has a high

objectivity?

(Yes/No)

QEC B2: How did you verify the objectivity?

(a) By checking if SAR was based on published data (Yes/No)

(b) Is the information given in SARs verifiable (Yes/No)

(c) Is the person preparing SAR properly

trained for an approach for this work (Yes/No)

QEC B3: How is evaluation of teacher by students verified?

(a) By discussion withy students (Yes/No)

(b) By matching with reputation peers (Yes/No)

QEC B4: Who get relevant proform as filled by:

(c) Students

(d) Aluminae

VALUE

QEC B1: Does SAR help in getting accreditation of a program?

B2: Does SAR help in highlighting the deficiencies of a

program?

B2: Does SAR assist in creating awareness about quality

issues?

D: IMPACT QEC D1: Which Programs have been accredited on the basis of

SAR?

(give list)

D2: Which Programs were reviewed on the basis of SAR?

(give list)

D3: What are major improvements made in programs as a

result of SAR?

(give list)

IV: ASSESSMENT OF EFFICIENCY AND CAPACITY OF THE QUALITY

ASSURANC AGENCY & QECs IN PERFORMING THEIR DUTIES

QEC B1: Which SARs were prepared under the guidance of

QEC

(Please give year wise list)

QEC B2: Since establishment how many awareness campaigns

were launched by QEC at:

(a) University level for faculty/students

(b) Program level for faculty/students

QEC B3: Which guidelines for conduct of Program Review and

preparation of SAR were developed / improved by the

QEC?

QEC B4: Provide figures of the year wise Annual budget (other

than pay & allowances) of QEC since its establishment

QEC B5: How fast you get response to your queries?

(a) From faculty staff :

Quick , within expected time ,

Late very late

(b) From students:


late , very late

(c) From University administration:


late , very late

(d) From HEC:


late , very late

B6: How prompt is your response given to queries from:

(a) HEC


late , very late

(b) Academic departments of your university:


late , very late

B7: Please give list of major achievements of QEC

(other than those mentioned above) since its establishment.

V: EVALUATION OF ACCREDITATIONCOUNCILS (ACs)

(To be filled by In-charge QEC)

A1: Which programs in universities require accreditation?

(give list)

A2: Which programs have been accredited so far?

(give list)

A3:Did AC provide proper guidance to HEIs regarding

preparation for accreditation of their programs?

A4: What was the mode of guidance?

(a) Manual for preparation of Self-Assessment Report

(b) Briefing to concerned Focal Person

(c) Report of zero visit

A5: Was enough time given from making preparation?

A6: Did the University admit any students in the program

before the accreditation?

A7: Was the program accredited before passing out of the

first batch of students admitted?

A8: What fee was paid to AC for accreditation for the first

time?

A9: Are you satisfied with the accreditation process?

(mention any shortcoming)

A10: Are you satisfied with the accreditation outcome?

(mention any shortcoming)

VI: EVALUATION OF THE ACCREDITATIONSYSTEMS & CRITERIA AND

COMPLIANCE WITH DECISIONS

(For Private HEIs only; to be filled by the Registrar)

Q1: How was your University/Institute Accredited?

(a) By HEC

(b) By Provincial Authority

(c) By Both

Q2: Which programs (give list) in your university are:

(a) Accredited

(b) Not Accredited

Q3: Are you satisfied that accreditation process and

accreditation criteria are applied with even hand vis-a-vis

public HEIs?

(Give reason if dis-satisfied) (Yes/No)

Q4: Which Criteria are different for private HEIs

compared with the public HEIs

(Give reason for the difference if any)

VIII: ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCESYSTEM OF AFFILIATED

COLLEGESEXTERNAL DEGREE PROGRAMS

(All Questions may be responded by In charge, QEC and Chairman, Affiliation

Committee & In-charge external Degree Program)

Q1: Does your university have a mechanism for Quality

Assurance for affiliated colleges? (Yes/No)

(please describe it)

Q2: Are there quality standards notified by your

university

other than the guidelines of HEC (Yes/No)

Q3: How strictly the Quality standards are applied to

Affiliated Colleges?

(a) De-affiliated immediately

(b) Give time to make up deficiencies

Q4: How does the University implement Quality standards

in large number of colleges affiliated with it?

(a) Regular monitoring

(Yes/No)

(b) Snap checking

(Yes/No)

Q5: How many affiliated colleges were de-affiliated for

non- compliance to the university standards in the last five

years?

Q6: How many new colleges were affiliated in the last 5

years?

Q7: Do you have External Degree program (Distance

Education program) in your University?

(Yes/No)

If yes then proceed further.

Q8: Do you have a Special Cell (department) /other

mechanism in university for Quality Assurance of Distance

Education?

(please explain)

Q9: What is the number of staff working in the

department of Distance Education?

Q10: How many students are enrolled in Distance

Education Program at this stage?

Q11: How many private students (on an average) every

year by your university?

Q12: How much faculty is dedicated for the Distance

Education Program?

Q13: What facilities are provided to the Distance

Education students?

Q14: Are you satisfied with the Quality Assurance

Mechanism of Distance Education?

(Yes/No)

Q15: If answer to Q14 is ‘No’ then give list of shortcomings

in the Quality Assurance System of Distance Education.

Annexure II: Institutional Performance Evaluation Standards

(IPES)

Standard 1

Mission and Goals

1. Statement of the Standard One

1.2 Context

1.3 Fundamental Elements of Mission and Goals

1.4 Evidence1 for Fulfillment of the Standard On

1.5 Institutional Effectiveness

Standard 2

Planning and Evaluation

2 Statement of the Standard Two

2.1 Institutional Planning

2.2 Evaluation

2.3 Context

2.4 Fundamental Elements of Planning and Evaluation2

2.5 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standard Two


Standard 3

Organization and Governance

3 Statement of the Standard Three

3.1 Organization

3.2 Governance

3.3 Context

3.5 Fundamental Elements of Organization and Governance

3.6 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standard Three


Standard 4

Integrity

4 Statement of the Standard Four

4.1 Context

4.2 Fundamental Elements of Integrity

4.3 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standard Four


Standard 5

Faculty

5 Statement of the Standard Five

5.1 Context

5.2 Fundamental Elements of Faculty

5.3 Evidences for Fulfillment of the Standard Five


Standards 6

Students

6 Statement of the Standard Six

6.1 Context

6.2 Fundamental Elements of Student Admissions

6.3 Evidences of Fulfillment of Standard Six


Standard 7

Institutional Resources

7 Statement of the Standard Seven

7.1 Context

7.2 Fundamental Elements of Institutional Resources

7.3 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standards Seven


Standard 8

Curricula and Academic Programs

8 Statement of the Standard Eight

8.1 Context

8.2 Fundamental Elements of Academic Programs and

Curricula

8.3 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standard Eight

8.4 Institutional Effectiveness:

Standard 9

Public Disclosure and Transparency

9 Statement of the Standard Nine

9.1 Context

9.2 Fundamental Elements of Public Disclosure and

Transparency

9.3 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standard Nine


Standard 10

Assessment & Quality Assurance

10 Statement of the Standard Ten

10.1 Context

10.2 Assessment

10.3 Quality Assurance

10.4 Fundamental Elements of Assessment & Quality

Assurance

10.5 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standard Ten


Standard 11

Student Support Services

11 Statement of the Standard Eleven

11.1 Context

11.2 Fundamental Elements of Student Support Services

11.3 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standard Eleven


Annexure. III. Questionnaire Filledby PD (IPES)

Name : Muhammad Shoaib

Designation : Project Director

Email Address:[email protected] /

[email protected]

Cell No. : 0332 5135300

QUESTIONNAIRE

(1) Do you feel that IPES being used are actually Accreditation Standards rather

than Performance Standards?

(Yes/No) NO

(2) Which other Country or Organization or International body uses the IPES

followed by HEC for assessment of performance of HEIs?

HEC has developed its own document “Institutional Performance Evaluation

Standards” (IPES) by consulting other international documents (references are

mentioned in footnote of IPES document)

(3) Please provide any publication/reference in support of the IPES being used by

HEC.

External Quality Assurance in Pakistani Universities, Asia Pacific Quality

Network (APQN) Conference -2014 held in Hanoi, Vietnam, 7-8 March, 2014

(4) Are criteria used for ranking of HEIs more relevant for IP review?

Ranking of universities/HEIs is referred to desk monitoring whereas IP

Evaluation is on-site evaluation. Therefore relevancy may not be found.

IMPLEMENTATION

(1) From how many HEIs did you face resistance in the implementation of IPES?

As such there is no resistance from HEIs. Due to HR Capacity constraint at

QAA, all HEIs are not evaluated.

(2) Which was the most difficult standard to implement/ for assessment?

Organization and Governance

(3) Have these IPES been reviewed since first round of implementation and by

whom?

Review/Updation of IPES is a planned activity at QAA. For the purpose, a

training of key IPE Panel members is planned at QAA – UK which will be

helpful while updating IPES.

(4) To what extent you feel that the recommendations of the Review Panel were

implemented by HEIs?

(less than 25%, about 50% , about 75% or more)

(5) Did you carry out any awareness campaign about IPES?

(Please explain)

Yes

At initial level, a copy of IPES was circulated among all Vice Chancellors of

Public and Private HEIs.

Briefing upon IPES is given many times at Vice Chancellor’s meetings and

suggested them for Institutional Performance Evaluations.

In QEC meetings arranged by QAA, importance of Institutional Performance

Evaluation is always briefed to QEC representative of HEIs.

(6) Did you carry out training program for Focal Persons in HEIs about

preparation of University Portfolio Report (UPR) or Self- Assessment Report

Initially, it was regular practice that PD of IPE Program visits the HEI one day

before the evaluation visit to provide help for preparations of Evaluation Visit.

No formal training sessions are held except in 2012, 10 focal persons were invited

at HEC to attend a briefing session on “How to conduct IP Evaluation”.

However telephonic sessions are always conducted by PD with focal persons to

help them while doing preparations for IP Evaluation.

(7) Did you publish any Manual to help implementation of IPEs?

(Pending)

(8) What criteria is used for selection of members of the Review Panel?

Initially, Those Director QECs which have international exposure/experience of

Quality Assurance, were selected as IPE Panel members.

Later on, IPE Panel members were selected on the basis of their performances

reflected in annual QEC rating (conducted by QAA).

(9) What is your satisfaction level regarding implementation (Evaluation) for IPES

& what are basis for this satisfaction?

(25%,50%,75% or more)

(10) Please list various staff members (with designation) working with you for

monitoring of implementation of IPES.

No staff member is currently working

(11) Do you grade (give scores) to HEIs on the basis of IPES review of HEIs?

No

(12) After how many years the reviews will be repeated? (2 years,3 years,5 years, No

decision)

No decision, however 5 years is under consideration

(13) How do you facilitate Institutional performance Evaluation?

All activities from letter submission to Vice Chancellor for conduction of

Institutional Performance Evaluation till the submission of report to university.

In addition to these activities, I also visit as IPE Panel member.

(14) Any suggestion for improving implementation (Evaluation)?

There is a dire need of secretarial staff for smooth conduction IP Evaluations

and other planned activities.

Value/Impact

(1) How do you gauge the value of IP Evaluation?

From action taken reports submitted by evaluated HEIs

(2) Did you conduct any survey to evaluate value of IP Evaluation?

Yes. Third Party Validation was conducted.

(3) Are you satisfied with the quality of the Evaluations?

(4) Yes. Best possible efforts are made for the conduction of IP Evaluations.

(5) To what extent you feel that implementation of IPES has improved as a result of

review process (Evaluations)?

(low, average, high)?

(Pending)

(5) What impact of IPES review (Institutional Performance Evaluation) has been

observed by you?

Impact assessment has not been conducted so far. However Action Taken

Reports/Feedback from evaluated institutions is good.

Follow UP

(1) How many recommendations of the IPES Review Panel have been implemented

by HEIs & HEC?

(approximate %age)

Follow up mechanism is not yet formulated.

(2) Did you write letters to HEIs to inquire about the implementation of the

recommendations for Review Panel?

Follow up mechanism is not yet formulated.

(3) What action did you take in case of non-implementation/no response & did it

improve the situation?

(4) Follow up mechanism is not yet formulated.

ANNEXURE IV: Analysis of Data For Institutional Performance

(I): INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWS A: Implementation of Institutional Performance

TABLE#1 for S1QA1

Attributes for the selection

of

focal person Reported by

Number of individuals reported about focal person

Considered

Not

Considered

QA2a: Seniority

QEC Person 5 12

Non QEC person 3 4

S1QA2b: Relevant

Experience

QEC Person 10 7

Non QEC person 3 4

S1QA2c: Relevance of job

QEC Person 12 5

Non QEC person 2 5

people aware of IPES &

its Review Reported by

Number of individuals reported about IPES

0% - 30%

31% -

60%

61%

90%

91% -

100%

S1QA1a: Faculty

Members

QEC Person 0 5 9 4

Non QEC

person

2 3 6 1

S1QA1b:

Administrative staff

QEC Person 1 7 5 5

Non QEC

person

2 2 4 2

S1QA1c: Students

QEC Person 7 6 4 1

Non QEC

person

4 3 2 1

TABLE#2 for S1QA1

TABLE#1 for S1QA2

TABLE#2 for S1QA2

people aware of IPES & its

Review

Reported by

Percent of individuals reported or aware about IPE

0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% 90% 91% - 100%

S1QA1a: Faculty Members

QEC Person 0 28 50 22

Non QEC person 17 25 50 8

S1QA1b: Administrative

staff



S1QA1c: Students



Attributes for the selection

of

focal person Reported by

Percent of individuals reported about focal person

Considered

Not

Considered

S1QA2a: Seniority

QEC Person 29 71

Non QEC person 43 57

S1QA2b: Relevant QEC Person 59 41

T

T

T

T

TABLE#2for S1QA4

Procedure adopted to

implement

Reported by

Percent of individuals reported

the recommendation of

review panel Yes No NA/NR Remarks

S1QA4a: notification after

approval

QEC Person 92 8


S1QA4b: Monitoring of

implementation

QEC Person 38 62


TABLE#1 for S1QA4

Procedure adopted to

implement

Reported by

Number of individuals reported

the recommendation of

review panel Yes No NA/NR Remarks

S1QA4a: notification after

approval

QEC Person 12 1

Non QEC person 3 1

S1QA4b: Monitoring of

implementation

QEC Person 5 8

Non QEC person 2 2

TABLE#2 for S1QA3

Trained/Briefed the focal

person

Reported by


Yes No NA/NR Remarks

S1QA3a: HEC

QEC Person 40 60


S1QA3b:

Institution/University

QEC Person 73 27


TABLE#1 for S1QA3

Trained/Briefed the focal

person

Reported by



S1QA3a: HEC

QEC Person 6 9

Non QEC person 1 3

S1QA3b:

Institution/University

QEC Person 11 4

Non QEC person 3 1

TABLE#1 for S1QA5

Recommendations have

been implemented/

Reported by


are under process for

implementation?

Remarks

Experience Non QEC person 43 57

S1QA2c: Relevance of job

QEC Person 71 29


TABLE#1 for S1QA6

T

T

T

T

Which Recommendation of

the Review panel

Reported by


was not implemented &

why? Yes No NA/NR Remarks

S1QA6a: Due to lack of

funds

QEC Person 2 5

Non QEC person 1 1

S1QA6b: Due to lack of

infrastructure

QEC Person 4 3

Non QEC person 0 2

S1QA6c: Difficult to

implement

QEC Person 1 7

Non QEC person 0 2

S1QA6d: Conflict with

policy of the institution

QEC Person 3 4

Non QEC person 1 1

S1QA6e: Any other(please

specify) QEC Person 0 5

Content

Analysis

Non QEC person 0 1

TABLE#2 for S1QA6

Which Recommendation of

the Review panel

Reported by


was not implemented &

why? Yes No NA/NR Remarks

S1QA6a: Due to lack of

funds

QEC Person 29 71


S1QA6b: Due to lack of

infrastructure

QEC Person 57 43


S1QA6c: Difficult to

implement

QEC Person 13 88


S1QA6d: Conflict with

policy of the institution

QEC Person 43 57


S1QA6e: Any other(please

specify) QEC Person 0 100

Content

Analysis


TABLE#1 for S1QA7

What should be the cycle

of Review?

Reported by



S1QA7a: After every two

years

QEC Person 6 12

Non QEC person 5 8

S1QA7b: After every three QEC Person 10 8

S1QA5: Provide a list QEC Person

Content

analysis

Non QEC person

TABLE#1 for S1QA8

T

T

T

What are your 3 most important

recommendations

Reported by


for improving the

implementation & Review

process?

Remarks

S1QA8a: The data should

be collected online QEC Person

Content

analysis

Non QEC person

S1QA8b: Awareness

Seminars/Workshops

QEC Person

Non QEC person

S1QA8c: Categorization

concept such as W, X, Y &

Z

QEC Person

Non QEC person

TABLE#2 for S1QA7

What should be the cycle

of Review?

Reported by



S1QA7a: After every two

years

QEC Person 33 67


S1QA7b: After every three

years

QEC Person 56 44


S1QA7c: After every five

years

QEC Person 11 89

Non QEC person 8 92

S1QA7d: NOT DECIDED

QEC Person 0 100


TABLE#1 for S2QB1

What is your perception

about the value of Review?

Reported by



S2QB1a:No value

QEC Person 0 16

Non QEC person 0 14

S2QB1a:Valueable

QEC Person 6 10

Non QEC person 7 7

S2QB1a:Highly Valuable

QEC Person 10 6

Non QEC person 7 7

years Non QEC person 6 7

S1QA7c: After every five

years

QEC Person 2 16

Non QEC person 1 12

S1QA7d: NOT DECIDED

QEC Person 0 8

Non QEC person 1 6

T

T

TABLE#1 for S2QB2

How did you determine the

value of the review ?

Reported by



S2QB2a: Your own

perception

QEC Person 4 13

Non QEC person 3 10

S2QB2b: Your own

experience

QEC Person 12 5

Non QEC person 9 4

S2QB2c: Discussion with

colleagues

QEC Person 10 7

Non QEC person 9 4

S2QB2d: Any survey

conduct

QEC Person 0 17

Non QEC person 0 13

TABLE2 for S2QB2

How did you determine the

value of the review ?

Reported by



S2QB2a: Your own

perception

QEC Person 24 76


S2QB2b: Your own

experience

QEC Person 71 29


S2QB2c: Discussion with

colleagues

QEC Person 59 41


S2QB2d: Any survey QEC Person 0 100

conduct Non QEC person 0 100

TABLE#2 for S2QB1

What is your perception

about the value of Review?

Reported by



S2QB1a:No value

QEC Person 0 100


S2QB1a:Valuable

QEC Person 38 63


S2QB1a:Highly Valuable

QEC Person 62.5 37.5


TABLE#1 for S2QB3

Which

aspect/recommendation of

the Review Panel

Reported by


you found very useful &

considered for implement Yes No NA/NR Remarks

S2QB3a: Documentation

against performance

criteria

QEC Person 8 6

Non QEC person 7 3

S2QB3b: Administrative QEC Person 7 8

T

T

T

T

TABLE#2 for S2QB3

Which

aspect/recommendation of

the Review Panel

Reported by


you found very useful &

considered for implement Yes No NA/NR Remarks

S2QB3a: Documentation

against performance

criteria

QEC Person 57 43


S2QB3b: Administrative

aspect

QEC Person 47 53


S2QB3c: Teaching aspect

QEC Person 33 67


S2QB3d: Research aspect

QEC Person 40 60


S2QB3e: Financial aspect

QEC Person 20 80


S2QB3f: Social aspect

QEC Person 0 100

Non QEC person 9 91

S2QB3g: Any other (please

specify)

QEC Person 0 100


aspect Non QEC person 4 7

S2QB3c: Teaching aspect

QEC Person 5 10

Non QEC person 3 8

S2QB3d: Research aspect

QEC Person 6 9

Non QEC person 4 7

S2QB3e: Financial aspect

QEC Person 3 12

Non QEC person 3 8

S2QB3f: Social aspect

QEC Person 0 15

Non QEC person 1 10

S2QB3g: Any other (please

specify)

QEC Person 0 14

Non QEC person 0 10

TABLE#1 for S2QB4

Are you satisfied with the

outcome of the Review?

Reported by



S2QB4: Satisfied with the

outcome of the review

QEC Person 11 4

Non QEC person 9 3 TABLE#2 for S2QB4



Reported by



S2QB4: Satisfied with the

outcome of the review

QEC Person 73 27


T

T

T

TABLE#1 for S3QC1a

S3QC1a:

Recommendation

no…………….

Reported by



(i) Improvement in

Administration

QEC Person 4 7

Non QEC person 6 5

(ii)Teaching/Research

QEC Person 6 5

Non QEC person 8 3

(iii)Financial management

QEC Person 2 9

Non QEC person 1 10

(iv)Planning

QEC Person 4 7

Non QEC person 5 6

(v)Any other (please

specify)

QEC Person 0 11

Non QEC person 1 10

TABLE#2 for S3QC1a

S3QC1a:

Recommendation

no…………….

Reported by



(i) Improvement in

Administration

QEC Person 36 64


(I): INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWS C: Impact

(ii)Teaching/Research

QEC Person 55 45


(iii)Financial management

QEC Person 18 82

Non QEC person 9 91

(iv)Planning

QEC Person 36 64


(v)Any other (please

specify)

QEC Person 0 100

Non QEC person 9 91

TABLE#1 for S3QC1

Which recommendation of

the Review Panel has

given

Reported by


up major

improvement?(Please

mention …)

Remarks

Recommendation & nature

of the improvement

with documentary evidence

if any

QEC Person

Content

analysis

Non QEC person

T

T

TABLE#1 for S3QC2

Did review help in improving quality of

University

Reported by



S3QC2: Did review help in

improving quality of Uni.

QEC Person 15 0

Non QEC person 7 0

TABLE#2 for S3QC2

Did review help in

improving quality of

University

Reported by



S3QC2: Did review help in

improving quality of Uni.

QEC Person 100 0


TABLE#1 for S3QC1b

Recommendation

no…………….

Reported by


Remarks

S3QC1b:(Add more

recommendations if

appropriate)

QEC Person

Content

analysis

Non QEC person

TABLE#1 for S3QC3

Did it help improving

Ranking of the University?

Reported by



S3QC3: Did it help

improving ranking of

University?

QEC Person 8 6

Non QEC person 6 0

TABLE#2 for S3QC3

Did it help improving

Ranking of the University?

Reported by



S3QC3: Did it help

improving ranking of

University?

QEC Person 57 43


TABLE#1 for S3QC4

Did it help in working of

university?

Reported by



TABLE#2 for S3QC4

S3QC4: Did it help in

working of university?

QEC Person 15 1

Non QEC person 12 0

TABLE#1 for S4QD2

T

T

T

T

T

Who is the responsible for

the follow up at Uni. level

Reported by



S4QD2a: VC office

QEC Person 6 9

Non QEC person 1 5

S4QD2b: Registrar

QEC Person 8 7

Non QEC person 3 3

S4QD2c: Focal Person

QEC Person 4 11

Non QEC person 2 4

S4QD2d: QEC

QEC Person 11 4

Non QEC person 3 3

TABLE#1 for S4QD1

Describe briefly the follow

up mechanism on

recommendations of

review Panel as adopted by

Univ.

Reported by Number of individuals reported

Remarks

S4D1: Follow up

mechanism QEC Person

Content

analysis

Non QEC person

TABLE#1 for S3QC5

Was there any other major

impact of the Review?

Reported by


Remarks

S3QC5.1: Better

documentation system

emerged

QEC Person

Content

analysis

Non QEC person

TABLE#1 for S3QC5

Was there any other major Reported by Number of individuals reported

(I): INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWS D: Follow up

TABLE#2 for S4QD2

impact of the Review?

Remarks

S3QC5: Any other major

impact of review?(Specify) QEC Person

Content

analysis

Non QEC person

Did it help in working of

university?

Reported by

P ercent of individuals reported


S3QC4: Did it help in

working of university?

QEC Person 94 6


TABLE#1 for S4D4

Did you respond to the

follow up letters of HEC?

Reported by


Remarks

S4QD4:Did you respond to

follow up letters of HEC? QEC Person

Content

analysis

Non QEC person

TABLE#1 for S4QD4



Reported by



T

T

S4QD4: Did you respond

to follow up letters of

HEC?

QEC Person 5 7

Non QEC person 2 3

Who is the responsible for

the follow up at Uni. level

Reported by

P ercent of individuals reported


S4QD2a: VC office

QEC Person 40 60


S4QD2b: Registrar

QEC Person 53 47


S4QD2c: Focal Person

QEC Person 27 73


S4QD2d: QEC

QEC Person 73 27


TABLE#1 for S4D3

Did you get any letter from

QAA(HEC) for follow up

Reported by


Remarks

S4QD3: Letter for follow

up (attach copies) QEC Person

Content

analysis

Non QEC person

TABLE#2 for S4QD3

Letter for follow up Reported by




up

QEC Person 33 67


TABLE#1 for S4QD3

Letter for follow up Reported by




up

QEC Person 5 10

Non QEC person 1 4

TABLE#1 for S4D5

Provide copies of letters

written to concerned depts.

Reported by


Remarks

S4QD5: Copies of letters &

follow up actions QEC Person

Content

analysis

Non QEC person

TABLE#2 for S4QD4



Reported by



S4QD4: Did you respond

to follow up letters of

HEC?

QEC Person 42 58


T

T

T

T

T

Annexure V: Questionnaire Filled in by PD

(QECs)

Name: Abaidullah Anwar

Designation: Assistant Director

Email Address:[email protected]

Cell No. : 03339891305

QUESTIONNAIRE

(1) What is the No. of technical staff working for you to oversee QECs in HEIs?

Two assistants

Both are shared with another section of QAA.

Both are non-technical

Both are temporary, hired on contingent basis

(2) How many QECs have been established so far?

152

(3) How many QECs have been reviewed by HEC so far?

So far QAA-HEC has undertaken quantitative assessment of IQA mechanism in 116

HEIs. Out of which, 110 have been assessed quantitatively by means of score card.

(4) Please describe the process of review of QECs?

QAA-HEC is supposed to assure the implementation of Quality Assurance mechanism

by means of following strategies:

i. Capacity building of QECs’ staff at HEIs:

Workshops are conducted w.r.t. Concepts of Quality Assurance, its techniques such as

6 sigma, blooms taxonomy etc., role of QAA, program self-assessment, role of QECs

etc.

ii. Conducting progress review meetings

After workshops, targets are assigned to QECs and then before quantitative

assessment, their progress is reviewed by calling their review meetings in groups. iii.

Doing monitoring / review visits

QAA-HEC is supposed to do informed / surprised review visits, randomly, but because

of lack of HR, it is not being done.

iv. Assessing progress quantitatively by means of score card.

HEIs are assessed against 3 main indicators of internal quality mechanism:

a. Establishment of QECs: includes parameters w.r.t. allocation of budget, appointment

of staff etc.

b. Incorporation of program self-assessment mechanism: includes parameters w.r.t.

conducting of assessment surveys, preparation of program selfassessment against 8

criterion and 31 standards etc.

c. Empowerment of QECs: includes parameters

w.r.t. membership of QECs in international bodies, capacity building of its staff by

giving them national / international exposure etc.

(5) How do you select Review Teams for QECs?

At present, since the review visits are not being conducted, review panels are not

selected. However, whenever it would needed to be, it would be done on analogy of

PhD/IPE Review Panels i.e. by selecting a team of 3-4 eminent Professors/Directors of

QECs, belonging to the HEIs other than that is being reviewed. Further, each review

panel may be accompanied by a representative/coordinator from QAA-HEC.

(6) Have you identified the difficulties in proper review of QECs?

Yes, difficulties are there in all of the three strategies:

In progress review meetings, since the sizes of the groups were very large, the

participants could not be given enough time to present / discuss their issues or best

practices etc. Further, administrative problems were also there in managing a large

group of participants.

Now the sizes of the groups, for review meetings, have been reduced to 15 HEIs.

Although the groups are now manageable but it has increased the number of review

meetings / annum, that in view of already short HR, is getting difficult to manage.

Because of HR shortage in QAA, review visits are not done, at all.

In quantitative assessment a number of problems have been observed:

o Poor mechanism of data collection and analysis. Although, it’s been now, a bit

improved by developing models in MS Excel, however, it needs to be automated by

developing a web based MIS. oPoor evidences in support of yearly progress report (YPR).

Evidences are sent manually, along with YPR. Because of workload and lack of HR,

establishing its authenticity is difficult, that makes the whole assessment questionable. By

developing a web based MIS, having ability of cross verification, it may be overcome. oLack

of reviews of the program self-assessment process. oLack of reviews of quantities

assessment criteria.

o Dependence of quantitative assessment upon one individual officer. It, not only

creates monopoly on IQA relevant information and biasedness in quantitative assessment but

also be risky in case the individual leaves or any accident occurs. oBecause of HR shortage,

succession planning is not possible.

o Poor archive. Lack of space and system. Although, it’s been very improved now,

however, it still needs improvement. Better if could be converted into paperless. oLack of

relevant HR. Only one officer, supported by two (shared, temporarily hired) assistants. In

view of the work scope, it is highly insufficient.

(7) How many QECs have appointed staff according to the HEC guidelines?

Out of 110 HEIs, those submitted their Yearly Progress Reports (YPRs), the status is as

under:

Quality

Indicator Dimensions of Quality Indicators

No. of

HEIs %age

Nos. and %age in

terms of:

√ Satisfactory

× Unsatisfactory

Hiring

of

HEAD

No. of HEIs having FULL TIME QEC Head 55 50%

√ 103 94% No. of HEIs having QEC Head on

ADDITIONAL CHARGE 48 44%

No. of HEIs having NO QEC HEAD 7 6% × 7 6%

Hiring of

Officer

No. of HEIs employed MINIMUM 2

OFFICERS in QEC 71 65%

√ 90 82%

No. of HEIs SHORT of 1 OFFICER 19 17%

No. of HEIs employed NO OFFICER 20 18% × 20

18%

Hiring of

Support

Staff

No. of HEIs employed FULL SUPPORT

STAFF 103 94%

√ 103 94%

No. of HEIs with NO SUPPORT STAFF 7 6% × 7 6%

(8) How do you award scores to QECs?

HEIs are assessed against 3 main indicators of internal quality mechanism, already

mentioned at section 4 (iv) of this questionnaire. Following procedure is followed for

assessment and awarding score:

i. Data is collected annually using an enriched MS Excel file, called YPR (attached).

ii. HEIs also submit evidences, in hard form, in support of the information claimed in YPR

iii. The claimed information is verified with the provided evidence and score is awarded as per

the formula given in the score card (attached).

iv. Total marks are 100. The HEIs are graded in different quality levels as per the following

score ranges they fall in:

QEC

Rating

Score

Range:

85% - 100% 68% -

84%

51% -

67%

Up to

50%

Criteria: Quality

Level: W X Y Z

v. The detailed score is communicated to HEIs having approval of the CA.

(9) What improvements in the structure of QECs have been made so far?

As such no. Since its inception, the same structure is followed. However, a suggestion is

under consideration that the size of QECs should be determined in view of the size of the

HEI. Whereas, the size of HEI depends upon the number of academic programs it offers. On

the basis of the number of programs HEIs offer, they may be categorized as Small, Medium

and Large HEIs. The structure of QECs may be recommended accordingly.

(10) Are you satisfied with the level of input made by HEC for improving working of

QECs? (Yes/No)

No

(11) If the answer is No, please explain the shortcomings.

Shortcomings / problems have been mentioned in section 6 of this questionnaire.

ANNEXURE VI: Analysis of Data for Program Reviews

(II): PROGRAM REVIEWS A: Implementation of Program Reviews

TABLE#1 for S1QA1

people aware of

Program Reviews

Reported by Number of individuals reported about IPES

0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% -90% 91% -

100%

To

S1QA1a: Faculty

Members

QEC Person 1 3 8 6 18

Non QEC

person

1 2 5 2 10

S1QA1b: QEC Person 6 7 5 0 18

TABLE#2 for S1QA1

TABLE#1 for S1QA3

Administrative staff Non QEC

person

3 4 1 1 9

S1QA1c: Students QEC Person 5 5 3 5 18

Non QEC

person

3 3 0 3 9

people aware of Program Reviews Reported by

Percent of individuals reported or aware about IPES

0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% -

90%

91% -

100%

To

S1QA1a: Faculty Members QEC Person 6 17 44 33 10

Non QEC person 10 20 50 20 10

S1QA1b: Administrative staff QEC Person 33 39 28 0 10




TABLE#1 for S1QA2

present Director/In charge of

QEC work whole time for QEC

Reported by Percent of individuals reported

Yes No NA/NR Remarks To

S1QA2 QEC Person 50 50 10

Non QEC person 67 33 10

TABLE#1 for S1QA2

present Director/In charge of

QEC work whole time for QEC



S1QA2: Present Director of QEC

work whole time for QEC

QEC Person 9 9 18


How was director/in charge QEC

appointed?

Reported by Percent of individuals rep orted about focal person

Considered Not

Considered

To

S1QA3a: Selection against an

advertised post

QEC Person 53 47 10


S1QA3b: Additional charge given

to a faculty member to work part

time

QEC Person 53 47 10


S1QA3c: Transfer of a faculty

member to work whole time

QEC Person 53 47 10


S1QA3d: Transfer from the other

post.

QEC Person 15 85 10


How was director/in charge QEC

appointed?

Reported by Number of individuals reported about focal person

Yes No To

S1QA3a: Selection against an

advertised post

QEC Person 9 8 17


S1QA3b: Additional charge given

to a faculty member to work part

time

QEC Person 9 8 17


S1QA3c: Transfer of a faculty

member to work whole time

QEC Person 9 8 17


S1QA3d: Transfer from the other

post.

QEC Person 2 11 13


TABLE#1 for S1QA4

What is the pay scale of the

current full time Dir./in charge

QEC?


BPS-7 BPS-19 BPS-20 BPS-21 To

S1QA4 QEC Person 2 3 3 1 9


TABLE#1 for S1QA4




TABLE#2 for S1QA3

QEC?


S1QA4 QEC Person 22 33 33 11 10

TABLE#1 for S1QA5



QEC?





TABLE#1 for S1QA5



QEC?





TABLE#1 for S1QA4

What is the pay of the current full

time Dir./in charge QEC?


3000 45000 to

65000

970000 140000 To

S1QA4 QEC Person 20 40 20 20 10

Non QEC person

TABLE#1 for S1QA4




3000 45000 to

65000

970000 140000 To



TABLE#1 for S1QA5




3000 100000 970000 140000 To



TABLE#1 for S1QA5




TABLE#1 for S1QA8

Trained/Briefed the focal person Reported by Number of individuals reported


S1QA8a: Personal briefing QEC Person 12 5 17


S1QA8b: Formal training by HEC QEC Person 8 10 18


S1QA8c: Formal training by

University

QEC Person 10 8 18


TABLE#2 for S1QA9

Non QEC person

0 0 0 100 10

Trained/Briefed the focal person Reported by Percent of individuals reported




S1QA8b: Formal training by

HEC

QEC Person 44 56 10


S1QA8c: Formal training by QEC Person 56 44 10

TABLE#1 for S1QA6



S1QA6a: HEC QEC Person 15 3 18


S1QA6b: Institution/University QEC Person 8 10 18


TABLE#2 for S1QA6



S1QA6a: HEC QEC Person 83 17 10


S1QA6b: Institution/University QEC Person 44 56 10


3000 100000 970000 140000 To


Non QEC person

level of co-operation did you

receive to complete program view

cycle


0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% -

90%

91% -

100%

To

S1QA10a: Dept. Chairman/in

charge program

QEC Person 0 2 14 2 18


S1QA10b: Faculty members QEC Person 1 4 13 0 18




S1QA10d: Assessment teams QEC Person 0 1 17 0 18


S1QA10e: Program teams QEC Person 0 4 14 0 18


S1QA10f: Administration QEC Person 5 2 11 18

TABLE#1 for S1QA9





S1QA9b: Formal training by HEC QEC Person 0 17 17



University

QEC Person 17 1 18


TABLE#2 for S1QA9





S1QA9b: Formal training by HEC QEC Person 0 100 0 10



University



TABLE#1 for S1QA10



0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% -

90%

91% -

100%

To

S1QA1a: Faculty Members QEC Person 0 11 78 11 10


S1QA1b: Administrative staff QEC Person 6 22 72 0 10




S1QA10d: Assessment teams QEC Person 0 6 94 0 10


S1QA10e: Program teams QEC Person 0 22 78 0 10


University Non QEC person

0 100 10

TABLE#2 for S1QA10

S1QA10f: Administration QEC Person 28 11 61 0 10


TABLE#1 for S1QA11

After how many years the same

program is to be reviewed again?



S1QA11a: After every two years QEC Person 8 10 18


S1QA11b: After every three years QEC Person 6 12 18


S1QA11c: After every five years QEC Person 1 17 18


S1QA11d: NOT DECIDED QEC Person 3 15 18


TABLE#2 for S1QA11

After how many years the same

program is to be reviewed again?



S1QA11a: After every two years QEC Person 44 56 10


S1QA11b: After every three years QEC Person 33 67 10


S1QA11c: After every five years QEC Person 6 94 10


S1QA11d: NOT DECIDED QEC Person 17 83 10


TABLE#1 for S1QA12

Non QEC person

1 0 0 0 1

How did you select the

Assessment Team?



S1QA12a: From other

departments within the university

QEC Person 14 4 18


S1QA12b: From outside the

university

QEC Person 4 8 12


TABLE#2 for S1QA12

How did you select the

Assessment Team?



S1QA12a: From other

departments within the university

QEC Person 78 22 10


S1QA12b: From outside the

university

QEC Person 33 67 10


TABLE#1 for S1QA13

programs were reviewed since

establishment of the QEC?


10 to 20 21 to 40 40 to 100 100 to 150 To



TABLE#1 for S1QA13

programs were reviewed since

establishment of the QEC?




TABLE#1 for S1QA17

TABLE#2 for S1QA17

Non QEC person



cycle


Small Medium High To

S1QA19a: Capacity of the

respective program/department



S1QA19b: Lack of co-operation

from chairman/faculty members

QEC Person 9 7 1 17


S1QA19c: Lack of human

resources

QEC Person 9 6 2 17


S1QA19d: Lack of financial

resources

QEC Person 7 5 5 17




0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% -

90%

91% -

100%

To



percentage of programs run by

your university Reviewed by HEC

Reported by


0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% -

90%

91% -

100%

To

S1QA18 QEC Person 29 14 43 14 10


%age of recommendations are

being implemented for programs


0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% -

90%

91% -

100%

To



TABLE#1 for S1QA18

TABLE#2 for S1QA18

TABLE#1 for S1QA19

TABLE#2 for S1QA19

percentage of programs run by

your university Reviewed by HEC


0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% -

90%

91% -

100%

To





cycle

Reported by



S1QA19a: Capacity of the

respective program/department

QEC Person 18 76 6 0 10


S1QA19b: Lack of co-operation

from chairman/faculty members

QEC Person 53 41 6 0 10


S1QA19c: Lack of human

resources

QEC Person 53 35 12 0 10


S1QA19d: Lack of financial QEC Person 41 29 29 0 10

TABLE#1 for S2QB1

TABLE#2 for S2QB1

resources Non QEC person 50 0 50 0 10

Extent the Program Review is

considered valuable on overall

basis by:

Reported by



S2QB1a: Program in charge QEC Person 0 79 21 10


S2QB1b: Faculty members QEC Person 5 84 11 10


S2QB1c: Students QEC Person 5 89 5 10


S2QB1d:University Admin. QEC Person 0 89 11 10


Extent the Program Review is

considered valuable on overall

basis by:


Low Medium High To

S2QB1a: Program in charge QEC Person 0 15 4 19


S2QB1b: Faculty members QEC Person 1 16 2 19


S2QB1c: Students QEC Person 1 17 1 19


S2QB1d:University Admin. QEC Person 0 17 2 19


TABLE#1 for S2QB4

Do you considered that awareness

about the quality issues

Reported by


the faculty staff & students created

by the Review had value? Yes No NA/NR Remarks To

S2QB4

QEC Person 18 1


TABLE#2 for S2QB2

What level of improvement took

place in the program after review

Reported by


0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% -

90%

91% -

100%

To

S2QB3



0

TABLE#1 for S2QB3

What level of improvement took

place in the program after review

Reported by


0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% -

90%

91% -

100%

To

S2QB3

QEC Person 5 5 9 0


0

TABLE#2 for S2QB2

Was improvement observed due to

the Review?

Reported by



S2QB2

QEC Person 100 0

Non QEC person 91 9

TABLE#1 for S2QB2

Was improvement observed due to

the Review?

Reported by



S2QB2

QEC Person 18 0

Non QEC person 10 1

TABLE#2 for S2QB4

Do you considered that awareness

about the quality issues

Reported by


the faculty staff & students created

by the Review had value? Yes No NA/NR Remarks To

S2QB4

QEC Person 95 5

Non QEC 50 50

TABLE#2 for S3QC1

Did the Review help is creating

awareness about quality issues the

program?



S3QC1a: Among faculty QEC Person 100 0 10


S3QC1b: Among students QEC Person 83 17 10


S3QC1c: Among administration QEC Person 100 0 10


TABLE#1 for S3QC1

Did the Review help is creating

awareness about quality issues the

program?



S3QC1a: Among faculty QEC Person 19 0 19


S3QC1b: Among students QEC Person 15 3 18


S3QC1c: Among administration QEC Person 19 0 19


TABLE#1 for S2QB5



Reported by



S2QB5

QEC Person 18 1

Non QEC person 10 1

TABLE#2 for S2QB5



Reported by



S2QB5 QEC Person 95 5

Non QEC person 91 9

TABLE#1 for S3QC2

Was there any improvement in

the conduct of the


TABLE#1 for S3QC2

person

Was there any improvement in the

conduct of the program after the

Review in terms of the following:



S3QC2a1: Faculty QEC Person 94 6 10


S3QC2a2: Space & facilities for

offices,labs,lecture rooms

QEC Person 89 11 10


S3QC2a3: Financial support from

university

QEC Person 83 17 10


S3QC2b1: Teaching QEC Person 94 6 10


S3QC2b2: Research publications QEC Person 83 17 10


S3QC2b3: Regularity in classes QEC Person 82 18 10


S3QC2b4: Better evaluation of

teachers by students

QEC Person 100 0 10


program after the Review in terms

of the following:


S3QC2a1: Faculty QEC Person 17 1 18


S3QC2a2: Space & facilities for

offices,labs,lecture rooms

QEC Person 16 2 18


S3QC2a3: Financial support from

university

QEC Person 15 3 18


S3QC2b1: Teaching QEC Person 15 1 16


S3QC2b2: Research publications QEC Person 15 3 18


S3QC2b3: Regularity in classes QEC Person 14 3 17


S3QC2b4: Better evaluation of

teachers by students

QEC Person 17 0 17


TABLE#1 for S4QD1

Who is the responsible for the

follow up on the

Reported by


recommendations the Assessment

Team? Yes No NA/NR Remarks To

S4QD1a: QEC

QEC Person 17 1 18


S4QD1b: Program Team

QEC Person 6 10 16


S4QD1c: In charge program

QEC Person 16 1 17


TABLE#2 for S2QD1

Who is the responsible for the

follow up on the

Reported by


recommendations the Assessment

Team? Yes No NA/NR Remarks To

S4QD1a: QEC

QEC Person 94 6 10


S4QD1b: Program Team

QEC Person 38 63 10


S4QD1c: In charge program QEC Person 94 6 10

TABLE#2 for S2QC3

Was the grade/ranking of the

QEC/HEI improved after the

completion of the Review?



S3QC3a:QEC

QEC Person 78 22 10


S3QC3b:HEI

QEC Person 67 33 10


TABLE#1 for S2QC3

Was the grade/ranking of the

QEC/HEI improved after the

completion of the Review?



S3QC3a:QEC

QEC Person 14 4 18


S3QC3b:HEI

QEC Person 12 6 18


TABLE#1 for S4QD4

Was the Response Reported by Number of individuals reported


S4QD4a: Prompt

QEC Person 8 8 16


S4QD4b:Delayed

QEC Person 8 8 16


S4QD4c:No Response

QEC Person 0 16 16


TABLE#2 for S4QD2

Did QEC write letter to Program

Teams/In charge Program for

implementing recommendations of

the Assessment Team?



S4QD2

QEC Person 94 6


TABLE#1 for S4QD2

Did QEC write letter to Program

Teams/In charge Program for

implementing recommendations of

the Assessment Team?



S4QD2

QEC Person 15 1

Non QEC person 1 0

TABLE#1 for S4QD3

Did QEC get response from the Reported by Number of individuals reported

TABLE#2 for S2QD4

program Team or In charge

Program?


S4QD3

QEC Person 11 0

Non QEC person 1 0

TABLE#2 for S4QD3

Did QEC get response from the

program Team or In charge

Program?



S4QD3

QEC Person 100 0


TABLE#1 for S4D5


What difficulties did you face in

the conduct & Program Reviews?



S4QD5a: Capacity of QEC QEC Person 7 10 17


S4QD5b: Lack of appropriate

authority with Dir./in charge

Program

QEC Person 4 13 17


S4QD5c: Slackness of Program in

charge

QEC Person 7 11 18


S4QD5d: Slackness of faculty

members

QEC Person 7 10 17


S4QD5e: High work load of QEC QEC Person 14 4 18


S4QD5f: Less cooperation/support

from Administration

QEC Person 5 13 18


S4QD5g: Finding appropriate

Assessment Team

QEC Person 4 13 17


S4QD5h: Less co-operation From

Assessment Team

QEC Person 3 14 17


Was the Response Reported by P ercent of individuals reported


S4QD4a: Prompt

QEC Person 50 50 10


S4QD4b:Delayed

QEC Person 50 50 10


S4QD4c:No Response

QEC Person 0 100 10


TABLE#1 for S4D5

What difficulties did you face in

the conduct & Program Reviews?



S4QD5a: Capacity of QEC QEC Person 41 59 0 10


S4QD5b: Lack of appropriate

authority with Dir./in charge

Program


Non QEC 0 100 0 10

TABLE#1 for S5QE1

Please give in order of priority

actions that will bring

improvement in conduct of

Program Reviews:


Minimum

Rank

Maximum

Rank

Frequent

Rank

Remarks To

S5QE1a: Increase in permanent

human resources of QEC

QEC Person 0 8 3

Non QEC person

S5QE1b: Proper training of

Director & staff of QEC

QEC Person 0 7 2

Non QEC person

S5QE1c: Better status of

Director/in charge QEC

QEC Person 0 8 1

Non QEC person

S5QE1d: Increase in financial

allocation for QEC

QEC Person 0 7 7

Non QEC person

S5QE1e: Better training of

Program Team(PT)

QEC Person 0 7 4

Non QEC person

S5QE1f: Development of more

elaborate guideline Manual for

conduct of Program Reviews

QEC Person 1 8 1

Non QEC person

S5QE1g: Better training of

Program Assessment Teams

QEC Person 0 8 7

Non QEC person

S5QE1h: Increase in payment to

Assessment Team

QEC Person 0 8 8

Non QEC person

person

S4QD5c: Slackness of Program in

charge



S4QD5d: Slackness of faculty

members



S4QD5e: High work load of QEC QEC Person 78 22 0 10


S4QD5f: Less cooperation/support

from Administration



S4QD5g: Finding appropriate

Assessment Team



S4QD5h: Less co-operation From

Assessment Team



TABLE#1 for S1QF1

Do you recommend the following

for the better"buy in"?



S6QF1a: Running strong

awareness

campaigns for faculty staff

about improvement in the

program's quality

QEC Person 17 0 17


S6QF1b: Incorporating the role of

Program Reviews as agenda item

in Academic Council

meetings once a year.

QEC Person 18 0 18


S6QF1c: Improving status of the

permanent

Director,QEC by giving

it scale to a Professor

QEC Person 16 3 19


S6QF1d: Appointing a permanent

Director,QEC

QEC Person 17 2 19


S6QF1e: The Director,QEC

should report directly to the

VC/Rector

QEC Person 17 2 19


TABLE#1 for S1QF1

Do you recommend the following

for the better"buy in"?



S6QF1a: Running strong

awareness

campaigns for faculty staff

about improvement in the

program's quality

QEC Person 100 0 10


S6QF1b: Incorporating the role of

Program Reviews as agenda item

in Academic Council

meetings once a year.

QEC Person 100 0 10


S6QF1c: Improving status of the

permanent

Director,QEC by giving

it scale to a Professor

QEC Person 84 16 10


S6QF1d: Appointing a permanent

Director,QEC

QEC Person 89 11 10


S6QF1e: The Director,QEC

should report directly to the

VC/Rector

QEC Person 89 11 10


ANNEXRE VII: Recommendations of Program Review Assessment Teams Implemented by Islamia

University, Bahawalpur.

SN Departments

for which

Implementatio

n plan

finalized/

approved

Weaknesses identified Actions taken

01 Management

Sciences

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

Lab upgradation

Lack of local & Regional Industrial linkages

Implementation of course file

Lack of MS/PHD / HECs approved PhD

Faculty

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

MS faculty appointed

Computer Lab up graded

More Industrial Linkages

established

Semester Calendar developed

v. Orientation day/Sports Gala

celebrated

vi. Maintenance of Course files on

regular basis

02 Physics i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

M.sc Curriculum revised

Semester Calendar, Course files

Orientation day/sports day

Seminar/workshop

Lab up gradation

Professional Visits

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

M.sc Curriculum revised

Semester Calendar, Course files

updated

Orientation day/sports day

celebrated

Seminar/workshop conducted

Lab up graded

Professional Visits paid

03 Library and

Info Sciences

i.

ii. iii.

iv.

v.

vi. vii.

viii.

Semester Calendar

Orientation day

Course files

Seminar/workshop

HEC digital Lab up gradation

Alumni of the Department

Training /Workshop for faculty

PhD Faculty may be hired

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

vii.

Semester Calendar, Orientation

day celebrated

Course files maintained


HEC digital Lab up graded

Alumni established

Training /Workshop for faculty

PhD Faculty hired

04 Applied

Psychology

i. ii.

iii. iv.

v. vi.

Focus on IT & oral Commutation Course

Course Counseling Center

Conferences & Workshops Organization

Thesis display

Local & regional industrial linkages HEC

approved PHD supervisors in the

department

i.

ii.

iii.

Orientation / Sports days, Course

files

celebrated

Establishment of counseling

center

Faculty members sent for PhD on

university Scholarships

iv. HEC supervisory applied

05 Education i.

ii. iii.

Focus on IT oral Communication skills

Accreditation

Course files

i.

ii.

Semester Calendar, Orientation day

, Course files


iv.

v. vi.

“Educators” Alumni link

Departmental web link

Conference /Workshop

iii.

iv.

Multimedia lab established Program

accredited

06 University

College of

Agriculture &

Environmental

Sciences

i.

ii. iii.

International ,Local & regional Linkages

Workshops

Lack of Laboratories & Equipment, and

fulfillment of program

accreditation requirements

i. ii. Semester Calendar, Orientation /

Counseling / Sports day, Course

files

PC-1 has approved from HEC for

establishing new laboratories and

purchase of equipment.

07 Arabic i.

ii. iii.

iv.

v. vi.

Orientation day,

Semester Calendar

Lack of HECs approved PhD Faculty

Sports day

Alumni and Web link

Conference /Seminar

i.

ii.

iii.

Orientation day celebrated on

30.10.2012

Semester Calendar prepared

Dr. Raheela Khalid acquired the

HEC approved supervisory

entitlement

iv. Sports day celebrated on

02.02.2013

v. Alumni & departmental weblink has

been created

vi. Conference is going to be

scheduled this year

08 Geography i.

ii. iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

vii.

viii. ix.

Orientation day, Course files

Alumni, departmental web link,

Lack of HECs approved PhD Faculty Lack

of local & Regional Industrial linkages

Conference Seminars

Exhibition

Alumni of the Department

Poster Exhibition

Long/Study Tour

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

Orientation day celebrated on

30.10.2012, Departmental

Semester calendar & Course file

implemented

Alumni & departmental web link

activated

Application of Dr. Asad Ali khan

for HEC approved supervisory

entitlement in is process

International Geographic Union

(IGU), Association of American

Geographers has been initiated

v. Seminar on Remote Sensing

application for environment has

been conducted on 20.12.2012

vi. GIS Map Exhibition held on

07/02/2013

vii. 1st meeting of the Alumni will be

held in 2nd week of May

viii. Poster Exhibition held on

31.05.2013 at 10 am

ix. Study tour of Khanspur was

organized on 13.06.2013 to

23.6.2013 in which students

surveyed Village

Rayala,Touheedabad and

Khanspur

09 Law i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi. L

Orientation/ Career day, Students attendance

focus, Implementation of course file, Web

page & email of the department,

Alumni not exists

HEC approved supervisor

Conference /seminars

Sports day ocal & Regional Linkages

i. Orientation day celebrated on

22/10/12, ii. Career day was

organized on June, 20th 2013. Mr. Fraz

Ashraf Khan, Lecturer performed the

functions of career counselor. iii.

course files implemented

iv. Webpage of the department on social

media network created for alumni,

[email protected] activated

v. Dr. A.Q Sial and M. Hafeez are

pursing for the same

vi. Department organized a seminar on

Judicial System in Pakistan

Lecture delivered by a British Scholar

&Expert through webinar.

Law moot competitions will organized

during the next semester. (December

2013)

vii. Sports day celebrated on 03/1/13 viii.

Seminar on “Clinical Legal

Education” by Open Society

Initiative Pak. ix. Department has

nominated Mr. Fraz Ashraf Khan,

Lecturer for these purposes.

x. Electronic Conversation has been done

with Intellectual Property Organization

has been done and remaining codal

formalities will be done in due course.

xi. Electronic communication with Hazara

University for Credit Transfer

10

Department of

Entomology

i.

ii.

iii. iv.

v.

Advance Lab Equipment

Celebration of Sports Gala

Alumni Activities

Local & Regional Industrial Linkages


i.

ii.

Furniture received and insect

rearing cabin prepared Sports Gala

organized 20-22 March,2013 ,

Annual function/cultural show was

organized on 31 May,2013

iii. [email protected]

ok.com

iv. Departmental web link

[email protected]

activated

11

Department of

Plant Breeding

& Genetics

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

Advance Lab Equipment

Celebration of Sports Gala

Alumni Activities

Local & Regional Industrial Linkages


i.

ii.

Laboratory equipment received and

functioning started (molecular

studies)

Sports Gala organized 20-22

March,2013 , Annual

function/cultural show was

organized on 31 May,2013

iii. [email protected]

updated

iv. Linkages with potential growers

are in Line

v. [email protected] activated

12 Education i. Mission & Vision statement of

the department

ii. Display of Program Mission, Objectives and

intended outcomes

iii. Oral and written skills of the students

iv. Accreditation of the Program

v. Employer survey

vi. Celebration orientation/ sports /cultural and career

day

vii. Alumni of the Department

viii. Local & Regional linkages, International linkages

and collaborative projects

ix. Course files

x. Organization of

Conference/Seminars/Workshops xi. Lacking of Ph.D. faculty

xii. Updating of Departmental web link. Faculty profiles at IUB web server

xiii. Activation of faculty members Turnitin and

IUB VPN services accounts

13 Management

Sciences

i. Mission & Vision statement of the

department

ii. Display of Program Mission,

Objectives and intended outcomes

iii. Oral and written skills of the students


v. Employer survey

vi. Celebration orientation/ sports

/cultural and career day

vii. Alumni of the Department

viii. Local & Regional linkages,

International linkages and

collaborative projects

ix. Course files

x. Organization of

Conference/Seminars/Workshops

xi. Lacking of Ph.D. faculty

xii. Updating of Departmental web link. Faculty

profiles at IUB web server

xiii. Activation of faculty members Turnitin and

IUB VPN services accounts

14 Commerce i. Mission & Vision statement of the

department

ii. Display of Program Mission,

Objectives and intended outcomes

iii. Teacher students ratio


v. Employer survey

vi. Curricular and co-curricular activities of

department

vii. Local & Regional linkages, International linkages

and

collaborative projects

viii. Course files

ix. Organization of

Conference/Seminars/ Workshops

x. IT training for admin staff

xi. Updating of Departmental web link.

Faculty profiles at IUB web server xii.

Activation of faculty members Turnitin

and IUB VPN services accounts

15 Forestry, Wild-

life & Range

Management

i. Shortage of Senior and experience faculty

ii. Insufficient text books, reference books and

IT facilities iii. Inadequate facilities for filed

visit

Accreditation

department

accreditation

council

for

visited

Program

16 Food Science

Technology

i. Shortage of faculty i/c senior and qualified faculty

ii. lack of requisite labs

iii. Existing teaching faculty of two members required

training for improving teaching skills

iv. Lack of books in Library

Accreditation

department

accreditation

council

for

visited

Program

ANNEXURE VIII: Recommendations of Self-

Sr.

All Deptt.

Name (e.g.

Department of

Engineering)

[Repeat Deptt.

Name every

time a

program name

is

mentioned]

All

Program

Name

Offered

by

HEI(e.g.

BS

Enginee

ring)

PT

Formati

on Date

[attach

notifica

tion]

QEC Review of the PT Report

AT

Formation

Date[attac

h name

list]

Date of

AT Exit

Meeting

with the

Dean,

PT &

Faculty

AT

Report

Submissi

on Date

Date o

Submi

sion o

Execu

ve

Summ

ry

VC b

QEC

PT Report

Submission

Date

PT Report

Resubmission

Date after

QEC Review

[if applicable]

PT

Report

Finalizati

on Date

50 0 50 39 38 38 36 34 34 34

1

Plant

Breedin

g & Genetics

PhD. 26-

Feb08 1-Jul-08 30-Oct-08

13-

Feb09 13-Feb-09

25-

Feb09 2-Apr-09

1-May

09

2

Plant

Breedin

g & Genetics

M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-

Feb08 1-Jul-08 30-Oct-08

13-

Feb09 13-Feb-09

25-

Feb09 2-Apr-09

1-May

09

3

Plant

Breedin

g & Genetics

B.Sc.

(Hons)

26-

Feb08 1-Jul-08 30-Oct-08

13-

Feb09 13-Feb-09

25-

Feb09 2-Apr-09

1-May

09

4 Plant Pathology PhD. 26-

Feb08 1-Oct-09 30-Oct-09 31-Oct09 31-Oct-09 1-Nov09 1-Jan-10

1-Feb

10

5 Plant Pathology M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-


1-Feb

10

6 Plant Pathology B.Sc.

(Hons)

26-


1-Feb

10

7

Soil &

Environmental

Sciences

Ph.D. 26-


1-Feb

10

8

Soil &

Environmental

Sciences

M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-


1-Feb

10

9

Soil &

Environmental

Sciences

B.Sc.

(Hons)

26-


1-Feb

10

Assessment Teams Implemented by KPK Agri. Uni. Peshawar

t

10 Rural Sociology B.Sc.

(Hons)

26-

Feb08 1-Jan-10 30-Jan-10 6-Feb10 6-Feb-10 1-Jan10 1-Feb-10

1-Mar

10

11 Food Science &

Technology

M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-


1-Mar

10

12 Food Science &

Technology

B.Sc.

(Hons)

26-


1-Mar

10

13 Plant Protection M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-

Feb08 15-Dec-10 8-Jan-11

24-

Feb11 24-Feb-11 9-Apr11

13-Apr-

11

4-May

11

14 Plant Protection B.Sc.

(Hons)

26-

Feb08 15-Dec-10 8-Jan-11

24-

Feb11 24-Feb-11 9-Apr11

13-Apr-

11

4-May

11

15 Weed Science M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-

Feb08 11-Jan-11 19-Jan-11

25-

Feb11 25-Feb-11 4-Apr11 5-Apr-11

4-May

11

16 Weed Science B.Sc.

(Hons)

26-

Feb08 15-Dec-10 8-Jan-11

24-

Feb11 24-Feb-11 4-Apr11 5-Apr-11

4-May

11

17

Institute of Bio-

technology &

Genetic

Engineering

(IBGE)

M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-

Feb08 1-Jan-11 22-Feb-11

11-

Apr11 11-Apr-11 3-Feb12 21-Feb12

30-Mar

12

18

Institute of Bio-

technology &

Genetic

Engineering

(IBGE)

B.Sc.

(Hons)

26-

Feb08 1-Jan-11 22-Feb-11

11-

Apr11 11-Apr-11 3-Feb12 21-Feb12

30-Mar

12

19 Agronomy M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-

Feb08 11-Mar-11 15-Mar-11

19-

Apr11 19-Apr-11

19-

Sep11 1-Oct-11

20-Dec

11

20 Agronomy B.Sc.

(Hons)

26-

Feb08 11-Mar-11 15-Mar-11

19-

Apr11 19-Apr-11

19-

Sep11 1-Oct-11

20-Dec

11

21 Agricultural

Chemistry

M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-

Feb08 14-Jan-11 29-Jan-11

16-

Apr11 16-Apr-11

21-

May11 9-Jun-11

20-Dec

11

22 Agricultural

Chemistry

B.Sc.

(Hons)

26-

Feb08 14-Jan-11 29-Jan-11

16-

Apr11 16-Apr-11

21-

May11 9-Jun-11

20-Dec

11

23 Horticulture M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-

Feb08 22-Apr-11 28-Apr-11

26-

May11 26-May-11 9-Jun11 12-Jul-11

20-Dec

11

24 Horticulture B.Sc.

(Hons)

26-

Feb08 22-Apr-11 28-Apr-11

26-

May11 26-May-11 9-Jun11 12-Jul-11

20-Dec

11

25 Livestock

Management

M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-

Feb08 16-Jun-11 16-Aug-11 6-Sep11 6-Sep-11

15-

Nov12 14-Dec12

17-Dec

12

26 Entomology M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-

Feb08 12-May-11 18-May-11 1-Jun-11 1-Jun-11

9-

May12 11-Jun12

30-Jun

12

27 Entomology B.Sc.

(Hons)

26-

Feb08 12-May-11 18-May-11 1-Jun-11 1-Jun-11

9-

May12 11-Jun12

30-Jun

12

28

Agri. Extension

Education M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-

Feb08 20-Sep-11 17-Nov-11

17-

Nov11 17-Nov-11

11-

Jun12 25-Jun12

30-Jun

12

29 Agri. Extension

Education

B.Sc.

(Hons)

26-

Feb08 20-Sep-11 17-Nov-11

17-

Nov11 17-Nov-11

11-

Jun12 25-Jun12

30-Jun

12

30 Agricultural

Economics

M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-

Feb08 20-May-11 30-Jul-11

20-

Nov11 20-Nov-11

31 Agricultural

Economics

B.Sc.

(Hons)

26-

Feb08 20-May-11 30-Jul-11

20-

Nov11 20-Nov-11

32 Human

Nutrition Ph.D.

26-

Feb08 5-Jul-11 15-Jul-11 15-Jul11 15-Jul-11 3-Oct12 10-Oct-12

15-Oct

12

33 Human

Nutrition

M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-

Feb08 5-Jul-11 15-Jul-11 15-Jul11 15-Jul-11 1-Oct12 10-Oct-12

15-Oct

12

ANNEXURE IX: Analysis of Data for SARs

TABLE#1 for S1QA1

34 Human

Nutrition

B.Sc.

(Hons)

26-

Feb08 5-Jul-11 15-Jul-11 15-Jul11 15-Jul-11

27-

Sep12 10-Oct-12

15-Oct

12

43 Animal

Nutrition

M.Sc.(H

ons)

26-

Feb08 29-Jun-14 5-Sep-14

26-

Nov14 2-Jan-15 4-Mar15 16-Jun15

25-Jun

15

How did the review help

Reported by Number of individuals reported about

foc

Yes No NR

S1QA2a: Improvement in teaching & research QEC Person 15 1 3

Non QEC

person

0 0 12

S1QA2b: To prepare for Accreditation of programs QEC Person 11 5 3

Non QEC

person

2 0 10

S1QA2c: Any other (please Specify) QEC Person 1 14 4

Non QEC

person

0 2 10

Were the Self-Assessment Reports prepared by

properly trained person


foc

Yes No NR

S1QA3: Were the Self-Assessment Reports prepared

by properly trained person

QEC Person 6 8 5

Non QEC

person

2 0 10

S1QA3a: Focal Person QEC Person 7 7 5

Non QEC

person

2 0 10

S1QA3b: Concerned Program in charge QEC Person 12 4 3

Non QEC

person

2 0 10

TABLE#1 for S1QA2

TABLE#2 for S1QA2

TABLE#1 for S1QA3

TABLE#2 for S1QA3

How did the review help

Reported by Percent of individuals reported about foc

Yes No NR

S1QA2a: Improvement in teaching & research QEC Person 79 5 16

Non QEC

person

0 0 100

S1QA2b: To prepare for Accreditation of programs QEC Person 58 26 16

Non QEC

person

17 0 83

S1QA2c: Any other (please Specify) QEC Person 5 74 21

Non QEC

person

0 17 83

How many Self-Assessment Reviews have been

undertaken by Uni. /HEI


Below 30 30 to 50 Above

50

NR/PS

S1QA1: Programs Reviewed QEC Person 2 (26 and

27)

3 (34,36

and 39)

1

(132)

Non QEC

person

0 0 0

Were the Self-Assessment Reports prepared by

properly trained person


Yes No NR

S1QA3: Were the Self-Assessment Reports prepared

by properly trained person

QEC Person 32 42 26

Non QEC

person

17 0 83

S1QA3a: Focal Person QEC Person 37 37 26

Non QEC

person

17 0 83

S1QA3b: Concerned Program in charge QEC Person 63 21 16

Non QEC

person

17 0 83

S1QA3c: Program Teams QEC Person 5 5 89

Non QEC

person

0 0 100

How was the information given in SAR verified?


Yes No NR

S1QA4a: By QEC QEC Person 79 5 16

Non QEC

person

17 0 83

S1QA4b: By Teams reviewing the program QEC Person 74 16 11

Non QEC

person

8 8 83

S1QA4c: By Accreditation Council QEC Person 32 42 26

Non QEC

person

0 17 83

How was the information given in SAR verified? Reported by Number of individuals reported about

foc

TABLE#1 for S1QA4

TABLE#2 for S1QA4

TABLE#1 for S1QA5

TABLE#2 for S1QA5

Yes No NR

S1QA4a: By QEC QEC Person 15 1 3

Non QEC

person

2 0 10

S1QA4b: By Teams reviewing the program QEC Person 14 3 2

Non QEC

person

1 1 10

S1QA4c: By Accreditation Council QEC Person 6 8 5

Non QEC

person

0 2 10

S1QA3c: Program Teams QEC Person 1 1 17

Non QEC

person

0 0 12

Is Self-Assessment


foc

Yes No NR

Is Self-Assessment


Yes No NR

S1QA5a: A statutory Requirement except for the

Accreditation

QEC Person 5 68 26

Non QEC

person

8 8 83

S1QA5b: HEC Directive QEC Person 89 0 11

Non QEC

person

25 0 75

S1QA5c: Initiative of university/institution QEC Person 32 47 21

TABLE#1 for S1QB1

TABLE#2 for S1QB1

TABLE#1 for S1QB2

TABLE#2 for S1QB2

Non QEC

person

8 8 83

How did you verify the objectivity?


foc

Yes No NR

S2QB2a: By checking if SAR was based on

published data

QEC Person 12 3 4

Non QEC

person

2 0 10

S2QB2b: Is the information given in SARs v

erifiable?

QEC Person 16 1 2

Non QEC

person

2 0 10

S2QB2c: Is the person preparing SAR properly

trained for an objective

QEC Person 13 1 5

Non QEC

person

2 0 10

S1QA5a: A statutory Requirement except for the

Accreditation

QEC Person 1 13 5

Non QEC

person

1 1 10

S1QA5b: HEC Directive QEC Person 17 0 2

Non QEC

person

3 0 9

S1QA5c: Initiative of university/institution QEC Person 6 9 4

Non QEC

person

1 1 10

Do you think SAR(Self-Assessment report) has a

high objectivity?


foc

Yes No NR

S2QB1 QEC Person 17 0 2

Non QEC

person

2 0 10

Do you think SAR(Self-Assessment report) has a

high objectivity?


Yes No NR

S2QB1 QEC Person 89 0 11

Non QEC

person

17 0 83

How did you verify the objectivity?


TABLE#1 for S1QB3

TABLE#2 for S1QB3

Yes No NR

S2QB2a: By checking if SAR was based on

published data

QEC Person 63 16 21

Non QEC

person

17 0 83

S2QB2b: Is the information given in SARs v

erifiable?

QEC Person 84 5 11

Non QEC

person

17 0 83

S2QB2c: Is the person preparing SAR properly

trained for an objective

QEC Person 68 5 26

Non QEC

person

17 0 83

Who get relevant profomas filled by : Online

System


foc

Yes No NR

S2QB4a: Students QEC Person 13 1 5

Non QEC

person

2 0 10

S2QB4b: Aluminae QEC Person 8 5 6

Non QEC

person

1 1 10

How is evaluation of teacher by students verified?


foc

Yes No NR

S2QB3a: By Discussion with students QEC Person 12 4 3

Non QEC

person

2 0 10

S2QB3b: By Matching reputation with peers QEC Person 10 3 6

Non QEC

person

1 1 10

How is evaluation of teacher by students verified?


Yes No NR

S2QB3a: By Discussion with students QEC Person 63 21 16

Non QEC

person

17 0 83

S2QB3b: By Matching reputation with peers QEC Person 53 16 32

Non QEC

person

8 8 83

Who get relevant profomas filled by : Online

System


Yes No NR

TABLE#1 for S1QB4

TABLE#2 for S1QB4

TABLE#1 for S1QC1

TABLE#2 for S1QC1

Does SAR help in getting accreditation of a

program?


foc

Yes No NR

S3QC1 QEC Person 16 1 2

Non QEC

person

2 0 10

Does SAR help in getting accreditation of a

program?


Yes No NR


Non QEC

person

17 0 83

S2QB4a: Students QEC Person 68 5 26

Non QEC

person

17 0 83

S2QB4b: Aluminae QEC Person 42 26 32

Non QEC

person

8 8 83

Does SAR help in Highlighting the deficiencies of a

program?


foc

Yes No NR


Non QEC

person

2 0 10

Does SAR assist in creating awareness about quality

issues?


foc

Yes No NR


Non QEC

person

2 0 10

TABLE#1 for S1QC2

TABLE#2 for S1QC2

TABLE#1 for S1QC3

TABLE#2 for S1QC3

Does SAR help in Highlighting the deficiencies of a

program?


Yes No NR


Non QEC

person

17 0 83

Does SAR assist in creating awareness about quality

issues?


Yes No NR


Non QEC person

17 0 83

ANNEXURE X: Questionnaire for HEC-Accreditation Councils

NAME OF THE COUNCIL ---------------------------------------------------------

Name of the Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------

Designation of the Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------

E-mail address ----------------------------------------------------------

Cell Number ----------------------------------------------------------

QUESTIONNAIRE

1: Do you feel that without a proper legal authority, the Council is not able to bring any

positive change in the quality of the program?

2: How has the score / category of each Institution/Program improved as a result of the

reviews?

3: What is your annual budget?

4: What is the percentage of budget met through own resources?

5: How long would it take for the Council to become financially autonomous?

6: Is the Council independent in taking its administrative and financial decisions?

7: What is the technical staff working for you

(please give their names and designations)

ANNEXURE XI: Questionnaire for GOP-Accreditation Councils

Name of the Accreditation Council …………………………………………

Year of passing Act. …………………………………………………………...

Name of the Person filling the Questionnaire:………………………………..

Designation:…………………………………………………………………….

E-mail Address:………………………………………………………………..

Cell No. :.……………………………………………………………………….

QUESTIONNAIRE

(1) How many Institutions/programs have been accredited by your Council since its

establishment?

(2) On an average, how long does it take to accredit a program after an application,

complete in all respects, is received by the Council?

(3) How is the Accreditation Team appointed?

(4) Do you provide guidance to the concerned Institutions as how to prepare for the visit

of the Accreditation Team?

(5) How are Accreditation Teams trained?

(6) In case an Institution contests the decision of the Council, how is the dispute

resolved?

(7) When were the criteria for accreditation of the program reviewed/revised?

(please mention the nature of revision made)

(8) How is the issue of conflict of criteria of the Council with criteria of HEC is

resolved?

(9) Are there still some outstanding issues of conflict in criteria with HEC and when are

they expected to be resolved?

(10) How do you assure quality of education in the program after accreditation by your

Council?

(11) Do you think that the accreditation criteria currently in vogue need to have inbuilt

flexibility to accommodate innovative ideas & new developments?

(12) To what extent the currently practiced accreditation criteria are aligned with

international practices of teaching/learning to produce highly knowledgeable &

skilled graduates comparable with the international Institutions?

(13) Do you focus in the criteria on enhancement of employability of graduates in the

international market e.g. through introduction of courses on communication,

management skills, internship with industry etc.?

(14) Do you have a mechanism of “SelfAssessment” for the Council?

(please describe it)

(15) How is your Council accredited by any International Body?

ANNEXURE XII: Questionnaire for Director QAA/PD (Accreditation Councils)

Name : Nasir Shah

Designation : Director QAA

Email Address : [email protected]

Cell No. : 0300-5960299

QUESTIONNAIRE

(1) What is the number of technical staff working with you?

One officer; Ms. Humaira Quddus Assistant Director QAA

(2) How do you monitor the progress of ACs established by HEC?

QAA-HEC regularly requests HEC established accreditation Councils for sharing status

of program accredited on quarterly basis.

Moreover, As prevailing practice, HEC established Accreditation Councils may be

asked to share its annual action plan at closure of every financial year along with the

audited utilization report.

QAA also supports funds to organizing training workshops by foreign experts for the

programs evaluators of the respective Councils in order to increase the pool of the

program evaluators for all Accreditation Councils.

Moreover, QAA-HEC regular publishes the advertisement of Parent/student alert

biannually, for increase awareness among stake holders i.e Parents/Student regarding

getting admission in the accredited programs.

(3) What is the progress of reviews & follow up of the reviews by these ACs?

Already answered on above;

(4) How many programs have been reviewed by each Council since its establishment?

Reference table: KPI- 10 Number of Program accredited by HEC established

Accreditation Councils - Quality Assurance Agency.

(5) Has the legal status of these Councils been determined by HEC & with what

authority?

The Chairman, HEC is the Competent Authority and the Commission of HEC.

(6) Which new Councils are under process of establishment by HEC?

Proposals for establishment of Life Sciences, Social Sciences and Medical Allied

Health Sciences are under consideration of the Commission, HEC.

(7) What is your relationship with the Professional Councils established by GOP

under Act?

HEC has signed a MoU with Pakistan Engineering Council on 15 May 2015. HEC has

already signed MoUs with Pakistan Council of Architects & Town Planner 09

September 2006, Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council dated 2006 & Pakistan Bar

Council dated 23 January 2014.

The coordination and relationship between HEC and respective Councils have been

more strengthened because of signing of MoU with them.

The first and foremost priority of HEC to sing MoU with rest of Signing MoUs with the

Councils namely Pakistan Nursing Council, Pharmacy Council of Pakistan, National

Homeopathy Council and National Council for TIBB.

(8) How the conflict between HEC standards & standards approved by Professional

Councils are resolved?

Two Crash training programs have been arranged by QAA-HEC in coordination with

PVMC for graduates of non-accredited universities/institutes for giving chance to

students for getting registration for DVM degree.

QAA-HEC also provided financial Support to the passed out students of HEC-Cuba

Scholarship to PM&DC; training course designed by PM&DC.

QAA-HEC has also been arranged test for students of Ex-affiliated institutes/college of

Al-hamd in coordination with NACTE.

(9) Are there such outstanding issues which need to be resolved in the future?

No issues.

ANNEXURE XIII: Activities of NAEAC Training Programfor

Evaluators

Three-Day TrainingWorkshop for

Program Evaluators/Experts of NAEAC

PROGRAM

Resource Person: Prof. Dr. Jianxin Zhang

Director of the Research Sector of HERI in Yunnan University, China

Advisor of the Council of Yunnan Provincial Education Department, China

Chief expert of Yunnan Higher Education Evaluation Center, China

Board member of APQN (Asia-Pacific Quality Network)

Advisor of the International Quality Group (CIQG), U.S.A

Organized by HECin collaboration with NAEACJuly 29-31, 2015

Day 1

Inaugural Session

Time Topic / Activity Responsibility

9:00-9:30 Registration NAEAC staff

9:30-9:35 Tilawat One of the

Participants

9:35-9:45 Welcome Address by DG QAA Dr. M. Rafiq Baloch

9:45-9:50 Address by Secretary NAEAC Mr. NaseerAlam

Khan

9:50-9:55 Address by the Resource Person of the

Workshop

Prof. Dr. Jianxin

Zhang

9:55-10:05 Address by Chief Guest: Member (HRD)HEC Prof. Dr. Ghulam

Raza BhattiMember

(HRD) HEC

10:05-10:15 Vote of thanks by DG QAA

10:15-10:30 Tea/Refreshment

MODULE 1:Quality Assurance In Higher Education

10:30-10:45 Methodology of Workshop and Accreditation :

SWOT Analysis

Prof. Dr.Jianxin

Zhang 10:45-11:30 Quality Assurance in Higher Education in the

World

11:30-12:00 Quality Assurance of NAEAC in Pakistan Mr. NaseerAlamKhan

12:00-12:30 Quality Assurance in China Prof. Dr.Jianxin

Zhang

12:30-12:45 Discussion of SWOT Analysison NAEAC QA

Group Work 12:45-13:00 Presentations on SWOT Analysis on NAEAC QA

13:00-14:00 Lunch and Prayer Break

MODULE 2:The Process of NAEAC Accreditation

14:00-14:15 Feedback on Morning Session Participants

14:15-15:10 The Procedure of NAEAC Accreditation Prof. Dr.Jianxin

Zhang

15:10-15:40 SWOT Analysisof NAEAC Seven Criteria Prof. Dr.Jianxin

Zhang

15:40-16:10 Discussion of SWOT Analysison NAEAC Seven Criteria

Group Work 16:10-16:30 Presentations on SWOT Analysis on NAEAC Seven

Criteria


17:00 Conclusion of First Day Workshop

Day 2

MODULE 3:The Development of NAEAC AccreditationInspection


9:00 -9:10 Feedback on Day I Participants

9:10-10:10 Development of the Field Inspection Prof. Dr.Jianxin

Zhang

10:10-10:40 Tips of NAEAC Field Inspection Mr. NaseerAlam Khan


11:10-12:10 Comparison of NAEAC Field Inspectionwith China Prof. Dr.Jianxin Zhang

12:10-12:45 Discussion of SWOT Analysison Field Inspection

Group Work 12:45-13:00 Presentations on SWOT AnalysisonField Inspection

13:00-14:00 Lunch and Prayer Break

MODULE 4: A Code of Conduct and Ethics for Evaluators

14:00-14:10 Feedback on Morning Session Participants

14:10-15:10 Code of Conduct for ProgramEvaluators Prof. Dr.Jianxin

Zhang

15:10-15:40 Roles and Responsibilities of NAEACProgram Evaluators Mr. NaseerAlam Khan

15:40-16:10 Discussion of SWOT Analysison Ethics for Evaluators

Group Work 16:10-16:30 Presentations on SWOT Analysis on Ethics for Evaluators


17:00 Conclusion of First Day Workshop

Day 3

J

MODULE 5: Format of the AIC Report u


9:00 -9:10 Feedback on Day 2 Participantsl

9:10-10:00 Format of the Report of the Field

Inspection

Prof. Dr.Jianxin Zhangy

10:00-10:20 Tips of Format of AIC Report Mr. NaseerAlam Khan

3

10:20-10:30 Tea/Refreshment 1

10:30-11:00 Methodology for Program Evaluators Prof. Dr.Jianxin Zhang

,

11:00-12:30 How to finish AIC Report emphasizing on

SWOT Analysis

2Group Work

0

12:30-14:00 Lunch and prayer Break

1

Closing Session

14:00-14:05 Tilawat One of the Participants5

14:05-14:10 Welcome address Dr. M. Rafiq Baloch

14: 10-14:20

Comments of the participants

Participant

14: 20-14:30 Comments of the Resource Person Prof. Dr. Jianxin Zhang

14: 30-15:00 Comments of the Chief Guest and

Distribution of Certificates

Prof. Dr. Riaz Hussain

Qureshi

15:00-15:00 Group Photo NAEAC

15:00 Conclusion of the Workshop

ANNEXURE XIV: Questionnaire Filled by Pakistan Engineering

Council (PEC)

Name of the Accreditation Council : Pakistan Engineering Council

Year of Passing Act : 1976

Name of the Person filling the Questionnaire: Engr.: Osaf Mahmood Malik

Designation : Deputy Registrar (Accr.)

Email Address : [email protected]

Cell No. : 03334979005

QUESTIONNAIRE

(1) How many institutions/programs have been accredited by your council since

itsestablishment?

Overall Accreditation Statistics up to 75th EA&QEC/EAB (December 2015):

1. Accredited Engineering Programs till date = 326

2. Under Process Engineering Programs = 100+

3. Accredited Engineering Programs as per Accreditation Manual 2014 (OBE) = 17

4. Engineering Universities/HEIs = 114

5. Engineering Disciplines accredited so far = 30

(2) On an average, how long does it take to accredit a program after an application,

complete in all respects, is received by the council?

As per PEC Manual of Accreditation (Second Edition, 2014) steps involved in accreditation

process are as follows:

STEP 1

SAR submitted to PEC Secretariat; first scrutiny carried out by PEC

Accreditation Department as per the qualifying requirements, and the

Institution is asked to provide any further data / information, if

required. This step is considered complete when the SAR along with

all the requisite data is available with PEC Secretariat.

STEP 2

Visit planning, scheduling and selection of visitation team by PEC

EAB. Visitation Team is provided with SAR along with the archives of

previous accreditation reports and last EAB decision, if any, for the

program. PEC representative will coordinate with team members and

the institute for providing any additional information, if required.

STEP 3

Pre-visit meeting conducted, On-site visit starts with a meeting with

Head of the Institution, following the visit schedule, i.e. presentation

by the program head, visit to Laboratories, Libraries, Workshops, and

other Infrastructure/Facilities, meeting with administrative staff,

faculty, students and other stakeholders such as alumni, employers,

parents.

STEP 4

Exit meeting with the Management, Principal/Deans to briefly share

the strengths and weaknesses of the program. At this stage the

institution may decide to withdraw the program from consideration for

accreditation.

STEP 5 Discussion among team members followed by compilation of Visit

Report and submission to EAB. EAB also sends a copy of the report to

the institution without team’s recommendations. These

recommendations are for the considerations of EAB decision.

STEP 6

Institution may submit Rejoinder/Comments on the report within 30

days of its receipt. If the Institutional rejoinder is not received by the

due date, it will be assumed that the Institution agrees to the

observations of the Team.

STEP 7 Consideration of the Report and the Rejoinder by EAB’s ADM for

final decision.

STEP 8 Communicating the Accreditation Decision to PEC GB/Chairman and

the concerned Institution, uploading on PEC website, followed by

Gazette Notification (SRO) for the benefit of the public.

(3) How is the Accreditation Team appointed?

The Visiting Team consists of a Convener, two PEVs, and a member from PEC staff to

provide secretarial support. The Visiting Team includes senior academicians/ engineers

having no conflict of interest with the institution to be visited, and who are selected on the

basis of their high standing in the profession, ability to assess curricula, competence in

appraisal based on overall objectives and performance towards the achievements of set goals.

The PEVs from academia will have an earned doctorate and minimum of five years of

teaching, research and practical experience. Representative from industry possessing

minimum Master’s qualification and considerable professional experience may be included

as a PEV.PEVs are selected based on relevant qualification, professional experience and

accreditation training. PEC secretariat will maintain an updated list of qualified PEVs

pertaining to all engineering disciplines. PEC shall arrange and conduct accreditation training

workshops for potential PEVs.

Upon finalization of evaluation team, institution may request for certain designated PEVs to

be excluded from the team in case of any conflict of interest by submitting a justified reason

in writing to PEC within a week after receiving the schedule of visiting team. In case of valid

reason(s), Convener / Chairman EAB will replace the designated evaluation team member(s).

(4) Do you provide guidance to the concerned Institutions as how to prepare for the

visit of the Accreditation Team?

Yes, the complete guideline is illustrated in the Manual of Accreditation which include

Activities and schedule of the visiting team for execution of successful Accreditation Visit.

Schedule of the visiting Accreditation team is shared with concerned Institution to prepare

for the visit.

The Convener will hold a pre-visit meeting with members in connection with evaluation of

the program, preferably in the evening before first day of the evaluation. The meeting should

focus on the points of concern noted by the team members and exchange of views on the

provided information / SAR, and also the progress made on the observations of previous

accreditation visit.

The institution shall arrange an exhibit-room for displaying the following documents:

i. Samples of minutes of meetings; policy documents; faculty profile; syllabi; research

publications; project reports.

ii. Details pertaining to faculty members to verify their requisite qualifications and to

ensure their continuity and effectiveness for teaching, learning& research pursuits.

iii. Program curriculum, evidence of regular review and consistency with PEC / HEC

guidelines and adoption of Outcome Based Education (OBE) system.

iv. Course files for the subjects offered in the program.

v. Evidence for continuous assessment and improvement of the program and

implementation plan.

vi. Random check of students’ work, question papers and answer sheets and student

attendance record.

vii. Annual budgets for the period under review

viii. Details of laboratories with equipment, its supporting staff and lab manuals

ix. Measures taken for provision of general safety, health and environment.

x. Availability of training aids for imparting quality education.

xi. Mapping of Program Educational Objectives /Course Learning Outcomes

(PEOs/CLOs) with Program Outcomes.

xii. Other additional document(s) required in support of the program.

Day One

i. Opening meeting with senior administration of the institution;

ii. Presentation by the Head of the Department of program being evaluated and ensuing

discussion;

iii. Assessment and analysis of documents displayed in the exhibit room;

iv. Visit of program laboratories and allied facilities;

v. Interaction with students;

vi. Visit to supporting and interdisciplinary departments and discussion with supporting

staff;

vii. Visit to allied facilities such as library, computing, internet, medical, sports, hostels

etc.;

viii. Discussion with alumni, employers and other stakeholders; ix. Meeting with the

faculty members;

x. Second review meeting of team members regarding assessment of the program.

Day Two

xi. The evaluation team may request for any additional information / data or facts for

clarifications to resolve issues or queries;

xii. Third review meeting of team members on overall assessment of the program;

xiii. Sharing observations (strong and weak areas of the program) with the higher

management of HEI;

xiv. Final meeting (post-visit) of the team members for compilation of draft visit report;

xv. Submission of final visit report to EAB.

(5) How are Accreditation Teams trained?

Accreditation teams are trained through National/International training sessions, workshops

and seminars, which are regularly conducted for Program Evaluators (PEVs) through reputed

international resource persons. Moreover participation of PEVs in international accreditation

visits, Accreditation Decision Meetings (ADMs) and workshops/symposia conducted by

Washington Accord (WA) Signatory Countries enable them to enhance their analytical

abilities and skills.

(6) In case an Institution contests the decision of the Council, how is the dispute

resolved?

In case an institution wishes to appeal for a review of the action on accreditation taken by the

EAB, a written application along with the prescribed fee should be sent to the Secretariat

within 30 days of the date of notification of the action. On receipt of such an application, and

being satisfied about its prima facie case, the Chairman PEC may appoint a special

Committee, consisting of a minimum of three members including Vice Chairman PEC as

Chairman and two subject specialists who were not initially involved in the visitation, to

conduct the appeal review. A meeting of the committee will be convened, wherein the

institution and the members of EAB may be invited to present their cases. The committee

may also visit the institution, if necessary. The recommendations of this committee will be

considered by the Chairman PEC for making final decision; the same will be communicated

to EAB.

(7) When were the criteria for accreditation of the program reviewed/revised?

Over a period of time the process of accreditation was formalized and the first Manual of

Accreditation was published in 2007 for implementation by Engineering Accreditation and

Qualification Equivalence Committee (EA&QEC). This manual included concepts of quality

assurance in Engineering Education adopted by developed countries. After achieving the

Provisional Signatory status of Washington Accord (WA) of International Engineering

Alliance (IEA) in 2010, the revision of Accreditation Manual was undertaken to harmonize

with the practices of WA-Signatories. The Engineering Accreditation Board (EAB), formally

known as EA&QEC is now carrying out the assessment of various engineering programs in

the country and has published the 2nd Edition 2014 incorporating WA guidelines and the

feedback of local stakeholders, various relevant international forums as well as WA-

Mentors. Whereas the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan is responsible for

quality assurance on institutional level; EAB, which works in harmony with HEC, is

responsible for the accreditation of engineering programs in the country.

(8) How is the issue of conflict of criteria of the Council with criteria of HEC is

resolved?

A memorandum of understating has been signed between HEC and PEC for smooth conduct

of affairs pertaining to engineering qualification recognition.

ARTICLE-12 of The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between HEC and PEC

explicitly states that:

“In case of any conflict with the interpretation of matters pertaining to the

accreditation/recognition or substantial equivalence of Engineering Programs, the issue will

be referred to five members Committee headed by Chairman HEC consisting of two

nominees each of the PEC and HEC for its possible resolution inline with

national/international best practices.”

(9) Are there still some outstanding issues of conflict in criteria with HEC and when

are they expected to be resolved?

As elaborated above (Answer to Question No. 8) any conflict between HEC and PEC will be

resolved as per the procedure agreed in ARTICLE-12 of The Memorandum of Understanding

(MoU). There are number of issues which need to be resolved with HEC and mutual

consultation is underway in this regard, e.g. recognition of foreign engineering

programs/campuses in the country, dual degree/double degree program jointly offered with

foreign HEIs, curriculum formulation and revision etc.

(10) How do you assure quality of education in the program after accreditation by

your council?

To assure the quality of education all the weak areas reported by the visitation team are

observed and keenly discussed during the consecutive accreditation visit. As far it is a

continuous process therefore zero visit, interim visit and accreditation visit reports are

considered to enumerate the weak areas, subsequently confirmatory visit if need be, is

conducted to ensure HEIs/Universities compliance for the improvement of core weak areas.

(11) Do you think that the accreditation criteria currently in vogue need to have

inbuilt flexibility to accommodate innovative ideas & new developments?

Yes, the Accreditation Criteria currently in vogue are in-line with International Bodies and

Forums having inbuilt flexibility to accommodate innovative ideas and new developments.

The Manual of Accreditation (Second Edition 2014) is the revised version and hence

implemented from April, 2014 as per Outcome Based Education (OBE) which is in

accordance with Washington Accord (WA) and Federation of Engineering Institution of Asia

and Pacific (FEIAP) guidelines. It is an internationally accepted system of education and

accreditation.

(12) To what extent the currently practiced accreditation criteria are aligned with

international practices of teaching/learning to produce highly knowledgeable &

skilled graduates comparable with the International institutions?

PEC accreditation criteria are in-line with Washington Accord (WA) and Federation of

Engineering Institutions of Asia and Pacific (FEIAP) accreditation guidelines as Pakistan is

provisional signatory of WA and member of FEIAP recognized for substantial equivalence of

engineering qualification/accreditation system at Asia-Pacific level duly endorsed by United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

(13) Do you focus in the criteria on enhancement of employability of graduates in the

international market e.g. through introduction of courses on communication,

management skills, internship with industry etc.?

The Scope and Objectives of Accreditation Manual-2014 are as follows:

i. To ensure that the graduates of PEC accredited programs possess 3 sufficient

academic background and knowledge for pursuing their professional career in

engineering

ii. To assure potential stakeholders and public at large in identifying those specific

programs which meet the PEC standards for compliance to accreditation criteria.

iii. To encourage improvement of standards of professional engineering education in the

country through implementation of CQI.

iv. To provide guidelines for the up-gradation of existing programs and for the

development of new programs.

Furthermore, the following 12 Graduate Attributes as per the PEC Accreditation

manual-2014 comprehensively focus on attainment of skills/attributes by the

graduates resulting in enhanced cross border mobility and acceptability for global job

market.

(i) Engineering Knowledge

(ii) Problem Analysis

(iii) Design/Development of Solutions

(iv) Investigation

(v) Modern Tool Usage

(vi) The Engineer and Society

(vii) Environment and Sustainability

(viii) Ethics

(ix) Individual and Team Work

(x) Communication

(xi) Project Management

(xii) Lifelong Learning

(14) Do you have a mechanism of “Self-Assessment” for the council?

(Please describe it)

PEC submits annual progress report to the Ministry of Science and Technology Islamabad,

Government of Pakistan. Regularly reports to international forums/bodies (WA, IPEA,

FEIAP etc) through annual/biennial reporting.

(15) How is your Council accredited by any International Body?

Pakistan represented by PEC has been provisional signatory of Washington Accord (WA)

and International Professional Engineers Agreement (IPEA) of International Engineering

Alliance (IEA) through established mechanism as per IEA guidelines which include:

i. Submission of application from PEC

ii. Continued mentoring through WA signatory countries

iii. Training/capacity building of Program Evaluators (PEVs)

iv. Biennial progress reporting to WA

v. Nomination of Review Panel by WA comprising experts from three WA signatory

countries

vi. Participation in Annual meetings (International Engineering Alliance Meeting -

IEAM) and presentation on progress towards full signatory status

vii. Final Review visit– (expected in the near future) Final submission of the review panel report

to WA Executive Council and decision/recognition of full signatory status – (review visit

awaited)

Similar mechanism was followed by the Federation of Engineering Institutions of Asia and

the Pacific (FEIAP) after which Pakistan (PEC) was declared / recognized as the first

economy for substantial equivalence of engineering qualifications in Asia Pacific region.

PEC has also been nominated as reviewer and mentor for Asia Pacific region and the Central

Asian Republics.

ANNEXTURE XV: Analysis of Data for Accreditation Councils

TABLE#1 for S1QA3

Did AC provide proper guidance to HEIs

regarding preparationfor accreditation of their

programs?


Yes No NR Total

S1QA3 QEC

Person

15 0 4 19

TABLE#2 for S1QA3

Did AC provide proper guidance to HEIs

regarding preparation for accreditation of their

programs?


Yes No NR Total

S1QA3 QEC

Person

79 0 21 100

TABLE#1 for S1QA4

What was the mode of guidance?


Yes No NR Total

S1QA4a: Manual for preparation of

SelfAssessment Report

QEC

Person

11 6 2 19

S1QA4b: Briefing to concerned Focal Person QEC

Person

7 11 1 19

S1QA4c: Report of zero visit QEC

Person

15 3 1 19

TABLE#2 for S1QA4

What was the mode of guidance?


Yes No NR Total

S1QA4a: Manual for preparation of

SelfAssessment Report

QEC

Person

58 32 11 100

S1QA4b: Briefing to concerned Focal Person QEC

Person

37 58 5 100

S1QA4c: Report of zero visit QEC

Person

79 16 5 100

TABLE#1 for S1QA5

Was enough time given for making

preparation?


Yes No NR Total

S1QA5 QEC

Person

17 1 1 19

TABLE#2 for S1QA5


preparation?


Yes No NR Total

S1QA5 QEC 89 5 5 100

Person

TABLE#1 for S1QA6

Did the University admit any students in the

program before the accreditation?


Yes No NR Total

S1QA6 QEC

Person

12 2 2 16

TABLE#2 for S1QA6


preparation?


Yes No NR Total

S1QA6 QEC

Person

75 13 13 100

TABLE#1 for S1QA7

Was the program accredited before passing out

of the first batch of students admitted?


Yes No NR Total

S1QA7 QEC

Person

7 10 2 19

TABLE#2 for S1QA7

Was the program accredited before passing out

of the first batch of students admitted?


Yes No NR Total

S1QA7 QEC

Person

37 53 11 100

TABLE#1 for S1QA9

Are satisfied with the accreditation process?


Yes No NR Total

S1QA9 QEC

Person

17 0 2 19

TABLE#2 for S1QA9

Are satisfied with the accreditation process?


Yes No NR Total

S1QA9 QEC

Person

89 0 11 100

TABLE#1 for S1QA10

Are you satisfied with the accreditation

outcome?


Yes No NR Total

S1QA10 QEC

Person

17 1 1 19

TABLE#2 for S1QA10

Are you satisfied with the accreditation

outcome?


Yes No NR Total

S1QA10 QEC

Person

89 5 5 100

ANNEXURE XVI: CHECKLIST Used By HEC For Recognition

of Newly Established HEIs/ DAIs Nature of Requirement Norms /Standards Remarks

Financial

Endowment Fund (Secured in the

name of

Trust/Society)

Rs.15.0 million

(Not required in case of public

universities )

Tangible assets in the form of

land/building etc.

Rs.25.0 million

Working Capital Rs.10.0 million

(Not required in case of public

institutions, which are required

approval of PC-I ensuring recurring

&

developmental expenditures)

Total: Rs.50.0 million

Departments

(Physics, Chemistry etc.)

Minimum 1 department in

case of an institute

No. of Administrative Staff With Admin. staff: teacher

ratio of 1:2

Faculty At least 6 teachers per department

Name of teachers (full-time)

required (cadre wise) per

department

Professor 1

Associate

Professor

1

Assistant

Professor

2

Lectures 2

Professor & Associate

Professor

Must be holder of Ph.D. Degree

Library

Journals

Subscription to at least 15 current

journals of international repute with

impact factor of at least 1.00

Books required At least 1500 books from major

international publishers in the

relevant field.

Facilities

Hall/Lecture theatres

12 to 15 sq. ft. per student

No of rooms required 2 lecture rooms per

Department, 1 seminar room, 1

Library cum Reading room,

1 committee room

Teaching and Admn Staff

Offices

Required

1 Staff room

1 Faculty office for each department

Laboratories/Workshops/

PC/Internet service

No. of laboratories required

At least 1 Lab. Per department with

appropriate space

Workshops 35 to 45 sq ft. per student

PC (desirable) 1 for 3 students in case of IT courses

Internet service 256 Kbytes access rate shall be

provided

Gross Area

Area in acres

3 – 1/3 acres at least (depending

upon the location having potential

for further development)

Built in/covered Area Minimum 100 sq ft. per

student

General facilities : office, staff room Basic facilities for staff and students

Hostel facilities

Scholarships and fee-ships At least 10% of the students to be

given scholarships

ANNEXURE XVII: Questionnaire for In-charge (HEC) Private

HEIs

Name : Hakim Ali Talpur

Designation : Deputy Director (A&A)

E-mail Address : [email protected]

Cell No. : 0333-5396460

QUESTIONNAIRE

(1) Are the minimum criteria (e.g. facilities required) for grant of NOC by HEC for

establishment of HEIs in private sector the same as for public sector?

Yes

(2) How many HEIs have been established since the year 2002 (after the

establishment of HEC)?

Total 87(a) in private sector (36) (b) in public sector (51)

(3) How does HEC resolve differences with Provincial Authorities to give

recognition to:

(a) Public HEIs (b) Private HEIs

As such, if such case arises, Provincial Authorities are requested on the basis of NOC

granted to public and private sector HEIs by HEC to resolve conflicts.

(4) Is there any difference in the application of quality criteria to public & private

HEIs?

No

(5) How many complaints received from private HEIs have been addressed by HEC

in the past one year?

Approximately 60

(6) What is the number of technical staff working for you to oversee working of

private HEIs?


Two officers:

1. Mr. Hakim Ali Talpur, Deputy Director (A&A) 2. Ms. Amna Qayyum, Assistant Director

(A&A)

Only two (2) support staff 1. Mr. Aamir Manzoor, Assistant 2. Mr. Jamil Akhtar, UDC

ANNEXURE XVIII: Questionnaire for In-charge

(HEC)forExternal Degree Programs

HEC focal person of External Degree Programs

Name : Muneer Ahmed

Designation:Dy . Director (QA)

E-mail Address : [email protected]

Cell No. : 0333-5623035

QUESTIONNAIRE

(1) How many universities (excluding AIOU & VU) have got External Degree

Program?

The directorate of distance education are established in 13 Universities in Pakistan.

They are expected to engage and replace private/external students as a distance

learners in direct or indirect manner.

(2) How many of these universities have established a separate Cell/Department to

oversee the working of External Degree Program & assure quality of education

through these Cells/Depts.?

The Universities were expected to establish directorate for facilitating private/external

students but after almost 7 years they are just providing facilitation to third stream of

education i.e. Open/Weekend/Blended Mode of Education besides Regular and

Private/External stream. It is observed that due to financial factor the private/external

students are not even discussed at any stage of implementation. There are significant

deviations observed about implementation of Distance Education project at

University and HEC Level. Narrowing Quality gap of regular and private/external

students was one of the main objectives mentioned in PC-1 for establishment of

Directorate of Distance Education. The Universities never bothered to implement PC-

1 in letter and Spirit.

(3) Has HEC reviewed the status & working of these Cells/Departments?

(please mention the number of Cells reviewed by HEC)

HEC and TESP officers were continuously monitoring these directorates and all

directorates are visited except The University of Faisalabad which is recently called

for meeting on March 25, 2016 but no one participated. It is worth to mention here

that after inclusion in TESP DLI5 the only concern was implementation of Learning

Management System. The main objectives of replacing private/External students

remained unchecked.

(4) To what extent are you satisfied with the quality of these programs?

(less than 25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, more than 75%)

Less than 25%

mailto:[email protected]

(5) How is the quality of External Degree programs in HEIs having no special

arrangements (e.g.Cell/Department) assured/monitored?

Quality of the private/external students is very poor in all public sector Universities

and that was the only reason for establishment of Directorates of Distance Education.

There is no defined parameters for QA mechanism of Distance Education being

offered through these directorates. However, some institutions have involved QEC for

the purpose.

(6) Are you satisfied with the QA system of AIOU & VU? Do they have QECs?

Not Applicable

(7) Has the QA system of AIOU and VU been reviewed by HEC and what was the

result?

Not Applicable

(8) What is number of technical staff working for you to oversee affairs of External

degree Programs


There is no staff for Directorate of Distance Education. One LDC is supporting

DD(QA) for all tasks assigned to him.

ANNEXTURE(XIX):ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE

DATA OF AFFILIATED COLLEGES AND EXTERNAL

DEGREE PROGRAMS

TABLE#1 for S1Q1

S1Q1: Does your university have a mechanism

for Quality

Reported

by

Number of individuals

reported

Assurance for affiliated colleges? Yes No N

R

Tot

al

S1Q1 QEC

Person

6 2 6 14

Non QEC

person

2 1 11 14

TABLE#2 for S1Q1

S1Q1: Does your university have a mechanism

for Quality

Reported

by

Percent of individuals

reported

Assurance for affiliated colleges? Yes No N

R

Tot

al

S1Q1 QEC

Person

43 14 43 100

Non QEC

person

14 7 79 100

TABLE#1 for S1Q2

S1Q2: Are there quality standards notified by

your university other

Reported

by


reported

than guidelines of HEC? Yes No N

R

Tot

al

S1Q2 QEC

Person

3 3 8 14

Non QEC

person

2 1 11 14

TABLE#2 for S1Q2

S1Q2: Are there quality standards notified by

your university other

Reported

by


reported

than guidelines of HEC? Yes No N

R

Tot

al

S1Q2 QEC

Person

21 21 57 100

Non QEC

person

14 7 79 100

TABLE#1 for S1Q3

S1Q3: How strictly the Quality standards are

applied to affiliated colleges?

Reported

by


reported

Yes No N

R

Tot

al

S1Q3a: De-affiliated immediately QEC

Person

3 4 7 14

Non QEC

person

0 2 12 14

S1Q3b: Give time to make up deficiencie QEC

Person

4 3 7 14

Non QEC

person

2 0 12 14

TABLE#2 for S1Q3

S1Q3: How strictly the Quality standards are

applied to affiliated colleges?

Reported

by


reported

Qui

ck

In

Tim

e

Lat

e

Very

Late

Tot

al

S1Q3a: De-affiliated immediately QEC

Person

21 29 50 100

Non QEC

person

0 14 86 100

S1Q3b: Give time to make up deficiencie QEC

Person

29 21 50 100

Non QEC

person

14 0 86 100

TABLE#1 for S1Q4

S1Q4: How does the University implement

Quality standards in large

Reported

by


reported

number of colleges affiliated with it? Yes No N

R

Tot

al

S1Q4a: Regular monitoring QEC

Person

7 0 7 14

Non QEC

person

2 1 11 14

S1Q4b: Snap checking QEC

Person

4 2 8 14

Non QEC

person

3 0 11 14

TABLE#2 for S1Q4

S1Q4: How does the University implement

Quality standards in large

Reported

by


reported

number of colleges affiliated with it? Qui

ck

In

Tim

e

Lat

e

Very

Late

Tot

al

S1Q4a: Regular monitoring QEC 50 0 50 100

Person

Non QEC

person

14 7 79 100

S1Q4b: Snap checking QEC

Person

29 14 57 100

Non QEC

person

21 0 79 100

TABLE#1 for S1Q5

S1Q5: How many affiliated colleges were de-

affiliated for non-compliance

Reported

by


reported

to the university standards in the last five years? Yes No N

R

Tot

al

S1Q5 QEC

Person

0 1 13 14

Non QEC

person

0 0 14 14

TABLE#2 for S1Q5

S1Q5: How many affiliated colleges were de-

affiliated for non-compliance

Reported

by


reported

to the university standards in the last five years? Yes No N

R

Tot

al

S1Q5 QEC

Person

0 7 93 100

Non QEC

person

0 0 10

0

100

TABLE#1 for S1Q7

S1Q7: Do you have External Degree program

(Distance Education Program)

Reported

by


reported

in your university? Yes No N

R

Tot

al

S1Q7 QEC

Person

4 5 5 14

Non QEC

person

1 2 11 14

TABLE#2 for S1Q7

S1Q7: Do you have External Degree program

(Distance Education Program)

Reported

by


reported

in your university? Yes No N

R

Tot

al

S1Q7 QEC

Person

29 36 36 100

Non QEC

person

7 14 79 100

TABLE#1 for S1Q8

S1Q8: Do you have a Special

Cell(department)/other mechanism in the

Reported

by


reported

university for Quality Assurance of Distance

Education?

Yes No N

R

Tot

al

S1Q8 QEC

Person

2 2 10 14

Non QEC

person

0 1 13 14

TABLE#2 for S1Q8

S1Q8: Do you have a Special

Cell(department)/other mechanism in the

Reported

by


reported

university for Quality Assurance of Distance

Education?

Yes No N

R

Tot

al

S1Q8 QEC

Person

14 14 71 100

Non QEC

person

0 7 93 100

TABLE#1 for S1Q14

S1Q14: Are you satisfied with the Quality

Assurance Mechanism of

Reported

by


reported

Distance Education? Yes No N

R

Tot

al

S1Q14 QEC

Person

4 1 9 14

Non QEC

person

1 0 13 14

TABLE#2 for S1Q14

S1Q14: Are you satisfied with the Quality

Assurance Mechanism of

Reported

by


reported

Distance Education? Yes No N

R

Tot

al

S1Q14 QEC

Person

29 7 64 100

Non QEC

person

7 0 93 100

Documents

FINAL REPORT - Higher Education Commission · 2017-01-16 · ii Quality Assurance & Accreditation (Organization, Mechanisms and Practice) (July, 2016) Consultant Prof. Dr. Riaz Hussain