Pakistan Engineering Council

Program Evaluation Report

(Accreditation/Re-accreditation)
PROGRAM EVALUATION WORKSHEET
RUBRICS defining D, W and C

1) For all accreditation criteria, the findings shall be recorded under ‘Compliance’
column as: 'Y' for Compliance 'C' for Concern, 'W' for Weakness, 'D' for Deficiency or ‘OFI’
for Opportunity for Improvement.

2) In case of 'C', 'W' or 'D', justification must be provided under ‘Observation and
Remarks’ column.
Number Legend Used:

“1” appearing in any assessment attribute signifies a Deficiency (D) towards the main
1 criteria
“2” appearing in any assessment attribute signifies a Weakness (W) towards the main criteria
2
“3” appearing in any assessment attribute signifies a Concern (C) towards the main criteria
3
“4” appearing in anysub-criterion signifies an Opportunity for Improvement (OFI) towards
4 the main criteria

Sr. No. Criteria Observations and Remarks For Non Compliance

Criterion-1: Program Educational Objectives (PEOs)

i. Well-defined and published Institute Institute Vision and mission are not defined. (D1)
Vision and Mission
Defined but not published (W3)
Not published as public document (C3)
ii. PEOs are defined, consistent with the D: PEOs are not defined. (D1)
Vision / Mission, and well publicized.
W: Reasonably defined but not aligned with V&M (W3)

i) There are some issues with PEOs’ alignment with

Vision/Mission; OR
(C3)
ii) The PEOs are too narrow or too broad; OR
iii) Not very well published as public documents

iii. Involvement of stakeholders in System does not have any mechanism for
formulation / review of PEOs. (D2)
involvement of stakeholders
Process partially defined AND no formal evidence
(W3)
showing involvement of stakeholders so far
 informal involvement of stakeholders seen (C3)

iv. A process in place to evaluate the No process defined (D2)

attainment of PEOs.
Process is defined but assessment tools/KPIs are
(W3)
nonexistent
i) Assessment tools/KPIs defined but are
inadequate; OR
ii) Evaluation mechanism and allocation of (C3)
responsibilities of entities are not clear /
confusing
v. Evaluation results used for continuous CQI process at PEO level is not defined (D2)
quality improvement of the program
i) Assessment data gathered, but no analysis and
evaluation carried out; OR
ii) Corrective actions based on evaluation results (W2)
are not identified and no implementation plan
worked out
Corrective actions are not implemented OR
(C3)
Only partially implemented.
Criterion-2: Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)

i. PLOs are well-defined and publicized. Not defined at all (D1)

Defined but not approved from the concerned
(W2)
Statutory Bodies
Insufficient justification of fulfillment of Graduate
(C3)
Attributes defined by EAB
ii. PLOs are appropriately linked to PEOs Not linked (D2)
Linked but not supportive to all PEOs (W3)
Some key points in PEOs are not addressed in PLOs (C3)
iii. PLOs encompass all the required Do not encompass the PEC GAs in totality (D1)
Graduate Attributes as defined in EAB
Accreditation Manual Partially encompass (W2)
iv. Mapping of Courses to PLOs No mapping is given. (D1)
Mapping is there but all PLOs are not adequately
(W3)
supported.
Mapping does not cover all the three Learning
(C3)
domains i.e. Cognitive, Psychomotor and Affective
v. Teaching-learning and assessment Teaching/ assessment methods not appropriate
methods appropriate and supportive of (D2)
/designed for attainment of PLOs.
the attainment of PLOs
Partially supportive. (W3)
Assessment methodologies both direct and indirect
(C3)
are in place but not appropriately applied.
vi. Quality of assessment process to KPIs are not defined. (D1)
evaluate the attainment of PLOs at
student as well as cohort levels through KPIs are not well defined or assessment is not carried
(W2)
out at the appropriate taxonomy
 well-defined Key Performance KPIs are well defined but assessment is not carried
Indicators (KPIs). (C3)
out at cohort level

vii. CQI process for PLOs is not defined. (D2)

Process in place by which assessment
results are applied to further refine the i) CQI process defined but not institutionalized; OR
assessment mechanism and/or redefine (W3)
ii) No analysis carried out
the program outcomes, thus leading to
Evaluation carried out but no corrective actions
continuous improvement of the program (C3)
taken.
Criterion-3: Curriculum and Learning Process

i. Curriculum covers required breadth, Curriculum deviates significantly from HEC/PEC

depth and distribution of the program curriculum guidelines or essential breadth and depth (D1)
courses according to program specific courses are missing from the curriculum
(HEC/PEC NCRC curriculum) i) The course files reveal that though the program
guidelines. does include the necessary Depth & Breadth
courses in its curriculum, but in actual practice,
the coverage of Depth contents is very shallow; (W2)
OR
ii) Coverage of Design aspects / projects are not
adequate.
Coverage of breadth contentsis not adequate. (C3)
ii. Curriculum provides balanced coverage Curriculum deviates significantly from NEQF; (D1)
of engineering and non-engineering
contents in-line with National Curriculum broadly conforms to NEQF but lacks
Engineering Qualifications Framework certain important courses in more than one curricular
(W2)
(NEQF) domain (i.e. Math, Natural Sciences, Humanities,
Management, Engineering);
Curriculum broadly conforms to NEQF but lacks
certain important courses in any one curricular (C3)
domain
iii. Adequate exposure to Complex No exposure (D1)
Engineering Problems (CEPs) and
Activities i) Limited exposure to CEPs in courses and labs; OR
(W2)
ii) Limited exposure to CEPs in FYPs.
Reasonable exposure in FYPs but not adequately
(C3)
covered in some courses/labs
iv. Availability of program specific well Essential Labs are missing or seriously deficient in (D1)
equipped labs to supplement theoretical the required lab equipment.
knowledge/class room learning.
Most of the labs are in place, some are deficient in
equipment or numbers of workstations in most of the (W3)
labs are not adequate to meet student demands.
All the required labs are there, a few have limited
number of workstations hindering adequate hand-on (C3)
exposure
v. Lab work supporting the attainment of There is hardly any opportunity to develop the
the required skills and its assessment required skills and/or no appropriate mechanism in (D2)
mechanism place to assess the skill attainment level.
Students are offered limited hands-on opportunity to
develop the required skills; assessment mechanism is (W3)
generally not appropriate.
 i) One or two labs lack the focus on
developing relevant skills; OR
(C3)
ii) The assessment mechanism lacks rigor or
appropriateness
vi. CLOs defined for all courses with CLOs not defined for most of the breadth and depth
(D1)
appropriate Learning-Levels, e.g. the courses.
ones defined in Bloom’s Taxonomy, CLOs not defined for some courses, inappropriate
and their mapping to relevant PLOs (W3)
Taxonomy level and their mapping to relevant PLOs.
CLOs’ action verbs not commensurate with
taxonomy levels indicated, lacking clarity in mapping (C3)
to PLOs.
vii. Formal involvement of industry in No involvement from industry (D2)
curriculum development / revision
Process in place but not regularly practiced (W3)
Informal industry involvement at departmental
level. (C3)
viii. Employment of other aspects No employment of other aspects of student learning, (D2)
(supplementary tools and practices) of including no regular office hours or time plan
student learning such as tutorial system
and seminar / workshops, etc. to Formal mechanism is there but not practiced. (W3)
enhance student learning, in addition to
regular classroom interaction and lab
experimentation. Regular office hours
announced and time plan being Some other aspects of student learning are practiced.
(OFI)
maintained is the minimum
expectation.
ix. Exposure to cooperative learning No internship program in place. (D2)
through supervised internship program
with formal feedback from the Only limited Internships are arranged, no feedback
employer mechanism is evident. (C3)

Internships are arranged, with some feedback but no

analysis for CQI (OFI)
x. Sufficient opportunities to invoke No such opportunities exist (D2)
intuitiveness and originality of thought
through Problem Based Learning Few instructors practice PBL and/or give design
(PBL), Design Projects and Open- projects in courses but not formalized by the (W3)
Ended labs. department.
The formalized use of Design projects, Open-Ended
labs and PBL is there but practiced in few breadth (C3)
and depth courses
xi. Assessment of various learning Inappropriate Assessment methods used for
outcomes (PLOs/CLOs) employing (D2)
evaluation of CLOs/PLOs.
appropriate direct / indirect methods.
Assessment in knowledge domain usually
appropriate but at times lacks rigor; OR Lacks (W3)
assessment in any other domain.

Use of inappropriate rubrics for assessment of skills

(C3)
and attitude domains.
Attainment of GAs in three domains Lacking attainment of all GAs in KSA (breadth &
xii. (KSA); Summative assessment by the depth and FYDP) expected by the cohort as (D1)
Graduates. summative assessment by the time of graduation.
 Satisfactory attainment is there but a lower level
(W2)
expected in terms of taxonomy.

Criterion-4: Students

i. Admission Criteria meets / exceeds Not in compliance with PEC regulations,

minimum eligibility criteria necessitating imposition of Article-8 of PEC (W2)
prescribed by PEC Regulations. Regulations for Engineering Education
ii. Annual intake is in-line with the Not in compliance with PEC regulations,
maximum intake allowed by EAB for necessitating imposition of Article-8 of PEC (W2)
the program. Regulations for Engineering Education
iii. Well documented policy on transfer of Students transferred from non-accredited programs;
students only from other accredited or student transfer allowed from accredited program
program restricting transfer of less than but with more than 50% Cr. Hrs. transferred, (W2)
50% of Cr Hrs required for the degree. necessitating imposition of Article-8 of PEC
Regulations for Engineering Education
No documented transfer policy (W3)

Policy in place but not strictly adhered to. (C3)

iv. Availability of designated student Limited provision available but hardly practiced for
counselors to advise / counsel students academic and career counseling of students. (W3)
regarding academic / career matters and
provide assistance in managing their Student counseling available but limited to academic
matters. (C3)
health, financial, stress, emotional and
spiritual problems.
Student counseling effective in limited areas. (OFI)
v. Manageable class-size (around 40-50 Unmanageable class size / lab groups. (W2)
for theory classes) and lab groups (2-3
students per workstation for hands-on Poorly manageable class size /lab groups. (W3)
type experiments, larger groups may be
Manageable class size/lab size but exceeding desired
manageable for demonstration type) (C3)
limits
vi. Manageable semester academic load Unmanageable semester academic load. (W2)
(i.e. 15-18 Cr. Hrs on the average)
Poorly manageable semester academic load (W3)
manageable semester academic load but exceeding
(C3)
desired limits
vii. Completion of courses as evident from
course-files and through student Course completion in majority of courses is less
feedback than 90% (D1)

viii. Students’ participation in national / Hardly any participation in any event. (W3)
international engineering exhibitions
and / or competitions, and facilitation Limited participation (C3)
by program for such participations
Participation in national events but not in
(OFI)
international events
ix. Quality of process to evaluate student No process is in place. (D2)
performance and suggest / take
corrective measures Process outlined but never followed. (W3)
Assessment is carried out but limited corrective
(C3)
actions are taken
 Criterion-5: Faculty and Support Staff

i. Sufficient Faculty Strength for Student-Teacher ratio 25+:1 (D2)

providing effective student-teacher
interaction (student-teacher ratio should
be as per PEC guidelines, i.e. better Student-Teacher ratio 20-25:1 (C3)
than 20:1)
ii. Balanced faculty having appropriate Less than 01Ph.D per intake section. (D2)
qualifications (min. postgraduate with a
reasonable percentage holding PhD) to Insufficient faculty in core areas of the program (W2)
cover all areas of program curriculum
Insufficient faculty in any one core area of the
(C3)
program
iii. Formal mechanism for faculty training
and mentoring on pedagogical skills Limited formal training but not organized by HEI (W3)
including OBE concepts and
implementation methodologies. (C4)
Formal training but not covering all areas.
iv. Effectiveness of faculty development No faculty development program (D3)
program to ensure their professional
growth and retention. Limited faculty development program (C3)

FDP is in place but not effective for faculty

retention/ growth (OFI)
v. Reasonable faculty workload (as per Unmanageable faculty workload (W2)
PEC guidelines) including facilitation
to young faculty pursuing higher faculty Workload though manageable but higher
studies. than the prescribed range (As defined in the
(W3)
PEC/HEC
guidelines) on the average
Faculty workload is balanced but no facilitation to
(OFI)
young faculty for pursuing higher studies.
vi. Course Files maintained as per PEC Course files are not maintained for majority of
Accreditation Manual -2014 guidelines courses (D1)
Course files though maintained but lack essential
information, analysis regarding completion of (W2)
contents and attainment of learning outcomes (GAs)
vii. Continuation of faculty research, No faculty research/ publications/ sponsored project
publications and sponsored projects (D2)
in recent years
from industry/donor agencies, etc.
Limited faculty research/publications/ sponsored
project in recent years (W3)

No funding from external donor agencies/industry

(OFI)
viii. The program should be headed by a Program is not headed by a senior PhD of relevant
(D2)
PhD senior faculty of relevant engineering discipline.
engineering discipline. Reasonable mix The program is headed by an inexperienced PhD
of Senior and Junior qualified faculty faculty or not from the relevant engineering (W3)
be ensured. discipline.

Majority of the faculty is young and inexperienced (C3)

 Criterion-6: Facilities and Infrastructure

i. Adequacy of teaching and learning Essential infrastructural facilities is very limited in

facilities, e.g. classroom environment (D2)
relation to the student population
and availability of various teaching
aids, etc. i) Infrastructural facilities are reasonable, but
not adequately maintained; OR
ii) Most of the facilities are adequate but some
have capacity/adequacy issues; OR
(W3)
iii) There is very limited availability of teaching
aids in the classrooms / laboratories; OR
iv) Teaching learning environment is not very
conducive.
ii. Provision of program specific labs (as i. The program does not have all core labs required
per curriculum), workshops, and for the program, though labs are being conducted
associated lab equipment for through some arrangements; OR
complementing the class / theory work. ii. (D2)
The labs are inadequate in terms of
availability of essential laboratory
equipment.
Fewer number of workstations/ equipment in the
labs, thus hindering sufficient hands-on opportunity (W3)
to the students;
i) Non-functional and/or very old equipment of
limited use; OR
ii) Generally congested lab spaces. OR
iii) Most of the Labs being overly committed with (C3)
very few free slots available for students to make
up for their missed lab sessions/experiments or
to work on their own projects, space inadequate
iii. Adequacy of library resources and i) Too small of a Library (in terms of space,
facilities. seating capacity, number of books etc.) with
regard to the overall university population,
unless complemented by a reasonably sized
departmental library for the program students;
OR (W2)
ii) No or very limited access to program related
research Journals (hardcopy/online) and very
limited and out of date program related as well
as general books
i) Congested Library Space with inadequate
seating capacity; OR
ii) No or very limited printing/copying facility;
OR
iii) No internet connectivity and/or No (W3)
computers for online access; OR
iv) No Digital Library and e-books; OR
v) Too few program specific technical books
and/ Journals.
 i. Too few computers and/or very slow internet
connectivity. OR
ii. Limited number and variety of latest Reference / (C3)
Text books (i.e. published in last 5 years) for the
program;

iv. Provision of sufficient computing Rare computing facilities and no internet access for
facilities and internet access / resources (D2)
faculty / students
allocated for the program.
Limited computing and internet access (W3)

Limited internet access (OFI)

v. Provision and effectiveness of Does not exist (D3)
consulting and career placement Exist but with very limited scope and resources. (C3)
services provided to the students
Available but not efficient, rare contribution (C4)
vi. Adequacy of support facilities such as No concept/existence of any support facilities;
hostels, sports and recreational centers, (D2)
neither is there any plan for acquiring these.
health care centers, student centers, and
transport facilities Inadequate facilities; planned for future but not yet
(W3)
approved.
Support facilities are available, some adequate and
some inadequate; however, their provision /
(OFI)
extension
is planned and approved.
vii. Adequacy of arrangements made / No awareness about safety, Highly unsafe
measures taken to ensure work-place environment, Not even basic fire-fighting equipment (D1)
safety (EHS concerns) in general, and and/or emergency exits.
while performing experiments in the i) Conscious about workplace safety and several
labs. in particular safety measures in place. However, no formal
policy/procedures for EHS documented; (W2)
ii) Inadequate safety measures inside / around
laboratories.
i) EHS concept/SOPs exist but occasionally /
limited practiced. (No evidence)
(C3)
ii) Safety measures available in labs but needs
improvement and proper maintenance.
Criterion-7: Institutional Support and Financial Resources

i. Adequacy of institutional financial Unstable Institutional financial resources (D2)

resources to ensure program’s
sustainability and meeting of recurring Hardly meeting recurring budgetary expenses AND
as well as developmental requirements. NO / barely minimal developmental budgetary (W2)
allocations / roadmap
Adequacy of financial resources for the recurring
expense But Developmental budget for the program (C3)
is not adequate / allocated
ii. Evidence of continued financial i) Financial health in terms of Endowment fund,
commitment in the form of increasing investments, etc. has gone down as compared to that
endowment and recurring /development at the time of last accreditation visit; (W2)
budget since last accreditation visit. OR
ii) Inadequate recurring/ development budget.
iii. Provision of funding for R&D pursuits No provision of funding for UG projects (D2)
and presentations/publication of
research papers Inadequate Funding, and that too mostly not utilized
because of no motivations / encouragement for (W3)
Publications and Research projects
Some funding for R&D pursuits and publications (in
(OFI)
the last 2-3 years)

Criterion-8: Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI)

i. CQI process is well documented and CQI process / mechanism is not in place (D1)
institutionalized at all levels (CLOs,
PLOs and PEOs). CQI is defined and institutionalized but not
(W2)
practiced.
CQI is well documented, institutionalized and
practiced at all levels, but some of the corrective (C3)
actions are not taken.
ii. Actions taken / implementation plans No actions are taken and no implementation plans
worked out to address the (D2)
are evident.
concerns/weaknesses identified in the
last accreditation visit report. Only partial actions are taken and/or implementation
(W3)
plans are unsatisfactory.
iii. Improvement in Faculty Strength / Insufficient improvement in Faculty
Qualifications since last accreditation (D2)
Strength/Qualifications.
visit, if required.
Partial improvement in Faculty
(W3)
Strength/Qualifications since last accreditation visit.

iv. Improvement in Student-Teacher Ratio Insufficient improvement in Student Teacher Ratio

since last accreditation visit, if (W2)
(current ratio is higher than 25:1)
required.
Partial improvement in Student-Teacher Ratio since
(W3)
last accreditation visit.
v. Continuation of Faculty Publications, No publications / R&D /Consultancy projects since
R&D and Consultancy activities (D2)
last visit

Limited research publications / R&D / consultancy

(W3)
activities.

Lack of Journal publications and /or funded R&D /

(C4)
consultancy activities.
vi. Addition of any new facilities, i.e. No addition of new facilities. (W3)
infrastructure, lab equipment, teaching
aids, etc. to assist in the attainment of
program objectives / outcomes, since
Limited addition of new facilities. (C4)
last accreditation visit

vii. New initiative(s) taken since last No new initiatives taken. (W3)
accreditation visit (including but not
limited to OBE implementation,
content delivery, assessment and
evaluation processes, etc.) No significant new initiatives taken. (C3)
 Criterion-9: Industrial Linkages

i. Existence of active Industrial Advisory No Industrial Advisory Board exists. (D2)

Board/Committee
Industrial Advisory Board exists but is inactive. (W3)
Meets irregularly. (C4)
ii. Formal mechanism for seeking No formal mechanism in place. (D2)
feedback from Industry and its analysis The formal mechanism is in place but the
for the attainment of PEOs assessment tools / methods do not correlate with the (W3)
PEOs.
The formal mechanism exists and its assessment
tools / methods also correlates with the PEOs;
(C4)
however, effective analysis not periodically
performed.
iii. Opportunities for students to acquire No dedicated Industry-Liaison office exists. (D3)
industrial experience via internship and
existence of Industry-Liaison office A dedicated Industry-Liaison office exists, but plays
(W3)
no role in arranging internships.
A dedicated Industry-Liaison office exists, but its
(C4)
effectiveness is limited.
iv. Design projects sponsored / supervised No sponsored design projects and no joint
(D3)
jointly by Industry Professionals and supervision.
faculty members
No sponsored design projects but limited joint
(C4)
supervision.

Industrial linkages exist but limited sponsored

(OFI)
design projects.
v. Faculty members involved in design / No policy exists or no faculty involvement with
supervision / consultancy role with the (D2)
industry on applied research / design project.
industry in the execution of applied
research / design project that are Limited faculty involvement with industry on
(C4)
relevant to society / industrial. applied research / design project.