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 any assessment attribute signifies an Opportunity for Improvement (OFI)
4 towards 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; OR
(W3)
Not approved by relevant statutory bodies

Not published as public document (C3)

ii. PEOs are defined, consistent with the

PEOs are not defined. (D1)
Vision / Mission, and well publicized.

PEO statement is not suitable/ repetition of PLOs (W2)

i) There are some issues with PEOs’ alignment with

Vision/Mission; OR
ii) The PEOs are too narrow or too broad; OR
(C3)
iii) Not very well published as public documents;
OR
iv) Reasonably defined but not aligned with V&M
iii. Involvement of stakeholders in System does not have any mechanism for
(D2)
formulation / review of PEOs. 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

attainment of PEOs. No process defined (D2)

Process is defined but assessment tools/KPIs are

(W2)
nonexistent
i) Assessment tools/KPIs defined but are
inadequate; OR
ii) Evaluation mechanism and allocation of
responsibilities of entities are not clear /
confusing; OR (C3)
iii) Weak correlation of the survey forms/
Questionnaire with PEO statements and lack
of evidence/ data (in case process exists and
survey forms are there)
v. PEOs are attained and evaluation results CQI process at PEO level is not initiated/
(D2)
being used for continuous improvement implemented
(CQI) 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 identified but not
implemented; OR (C3)
Only partially implemented.
Incomplete duration of program accreditation
cycle after graduation (3-5 years of N/A
assessment frequency is required)

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
evaluate the attainment of PLOs at KPIs are not defined. (D1)
student as well as cohort levels through
well-defined Key Performance KPIs are not well defined or assessment is not carried
Indicators (KPIs); minimum threshold out at the appropriate taxonomy; OR
(W2)
value should not be less than 50% minimum threshold value (i.e. KPI for PLO
attainment) is less than 50%
KPIs are well defined but assessment is not carried
(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 ii) No analysis carried out (W3)
the program outcomes, thus leading to
continuous improvement of the program Evaluation carried out but no corrective actions
(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 ECRDC 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 contents is not adequate. (C3)

ii. Curriculum provides balanced coverage

of engineering and non-engineering Curriculum deviates significantly from NEQF; (D1)
contents in-line with National
Engineering Qualifications Framework Curriculum broadly conforms to NEQF but lacks
(NEQF) and the prescribed Knowledge certain important courses in more than one curricular
Profile – WKs domain (Math, Natural Sciences, Humanities, (W2)
Management, Engineering), encompassing the
Knowledge Profile – WK1 to WK8
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.
The assessment mechanism lacks rigor or
appropriateness (lacking Lab CLOs with Rubric (W2)
based assessment mechanism)
i) One or two labs lack the focus on
developing relevant skills; OR

ii) Students are offered limited hands-on (C3)

opportunity to develop the required skills;
assessment mechanism is generally not
appropriate
vi. CLOs defined for all courses with CLOs not defined for most of the breadth and depth
appropriate Learning-Levels, e.g. the (D1)
courses.
ones defined in Bloom’s Taxonomy,
and their mapping to relevant PLOs CLOs not defined for some courses, inappropriate
(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
curriculum development / revision No involvement from industry (D2)

Process in place but not regularly practiced (W3)

Informal industry involvement at departmental

(C3)
level.
viii. Employment of other aspects
No employment of other aspects of student learning,
(supplementary tools and practices) of (D2)
including no regular office hours or time plan
student learning such as tutorial system
and seminar / workshops, etc. to
enhance student learning, in addition to Formal mechanism is there but not practiced. (W3)
regular classroom interaction and lab
experimentation. Regular office hours
announced and time plan being
Some other aspects of student learning are practiced.
maintained is the minimum (OFI)
expectation.
ix. Exposure to cooperative learning
through supervised and mandatory No internship program in place. (D2)
internship program with formal
feedback from the employer Only limited Internships are arranged, no feedback
(C3)
mechanism is evident.
 Internships are arranged, with some feedback but no
(OFI)
analysis for CQI
x. Sufficient opportunities to invoke
intuitiveness and originality of thought No such opportunities exist (D2)
through Problem Based Learning
(PBL), Design Projects and Open- Few instructors practice PBL and/or give design
Ended labs. projects in courses but not formalized by the (W3)
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 &
(KSA); Summative assessment by the depth and FYDP) expected by the cohort as (D1)
Graduates. summative assessment by the time of graduation.
xii.
Satisfactory attainment is there but a lower level
(W2)
expected in terms of taxonomy.
Final Year Design projects (FYDP)
shall include complex engineering FYDPs could not be justified as an apex culmination
(D2)
problems and design of systems, of CEPs/CEAs and do not encompass SDGs
components or processes integrating
FYDPs are CEPs of medium taxonomy levels and
core areas and meeting specified needs
somewhat encompass SDGs; OR
with appropriate consideration for
public health and safety along with
xiii. FYDPs are mostly Review based instances with no
cultural, societal, and environmental
focus on real world implementation; OR
considerations encompassing SDGs.
(W2)
FYDPs are conducted in groups of more than 4
students; as a result, it is not possible for each
student to rigorously work on his subtask and
demonstrate the attainment of GAs mapped to the
FYDP.
FYDP project deliverables and the FYDP project deliverables and reports are not
reports are graded according to well- assessed using a well-defined mechanism of rubrics
(D2)
defined mechanism of rubrics and and comprehensive guidelines; as a result, the
comprehensive standard operating quality of deliverables and reports is unsatisfactory.
procedures (SoPs). FYDP has an unsatisfactory assessment mechanism
of rubrics for project deliverables and reports; as a
result, it is not possible to cross examine the
(W2)
evidence about the attainment of GAs mapped to
xiv.
FYDP and the quality of reports is only marginally
acceptable.
FYDP has an assessment mechanism of rubrics and
SoPs for project deliverables and reports; yet the
evidence of attainment of GAs mapped to FYDP is
(C3)
not available and the quality of reports is not
satisfactory and requires further rigorous proof
editing by the supervisor and committee.
 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

for theory classes) and lab groups (2-3 Unmanageable class size / lab groups. (W2)
students per workstation for hands-on
type experiments, larger groups may be Poorly manageable class size /lab groups. (W3)
manageable for demonstration type)
Manageable class size/lab size but exceeding desired
(C3)
limits
vi. Manageable semester academic load
(i.e. 15-18 Cr. Hrs on the average) Unmanageable semester academic load. (W2)

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
(D1)
feedback than 90%

viii. Students’ participation in national /

international engineering exhibitions Hardly any participation in any event. (W3)
and / or competitions, and facilitation
by program for such participations Limited participation (C3)

Participation in national events but not in

(OFI)
international events
ix. Quality of process to evaluate student
performance and suggest / take No process is in place. (D2)
corrective measures
Process outlined but never followed. (W3)
 Assessment is carried out but limited corrective
(C3)
actions are taken
x. How the program is inculcating No such provision exists; OR
community services (W2)
No contact hour(s) arranged/ practiced.
Informal mechanism requiring community service
(C3)
exists.

Criterion-5: Faculty and Support Staff

i. Sufficient Faculty Strength for
providing effective student-teacher Student-Teacher ratio 25+:1 (D2)
interaction (student-teacher ratio should
be as per PEC guidelines, i.e. better Student-Teacher ratio 20-25:1 (W2)
than 20:1)
ii. Balanced faculty having appropriate
qualifications (min. postgraduate with a Less than 02 Ph.D per intake section. (D2)
reasonable percentage holding PhD) to
cover all areas of program curriculum Insufficient faculty in core areas of the program (W2)

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 (C3)
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
Manual of Accreditation 2019 – Third courses (D1)
Edition (Amended Ver. of
Accreditation Manual - 2014) Course files though maintained but lack essential
guidelines 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
(D2)
complementing the class / theory work. ii) 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) Insufficient library resources and facilities (in
facilities. terms of space, seating capacity, number of
books, digital library, e-books/ journals etc.)
with regard to the overall university population,
unless complemented by a reasonably sized
departmental library for the program students; (W2)
OR
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
(W3)
iii) No internet connectivity and/or No
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 (W2)

v. Provision and effectiveness of

consulting and career placement Does not exist (D3)
services provided to the students
Exist but with very limited scope and resources. (C3)

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
resources to ensure program’s Unsustainable Institutional financial resources (D2)
sustainability and meeting of recurring
as well as developmental requirements. Hardly meeting recurring budgetary expenses AND
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
and presentations/publication of No provision of funding for UG projects (D2)
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
institutionalized at all levels (CLOs, CQI process / mechanism is not in place (D1)
PLOs and PEOs) through institute’s
QMS. 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.
infrastructure, lab equipment, teaching No addition of new facilities. (W3)
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 No significant new initiatives taken. (C3)
evaluation processes, etc.)

Criterion-9: Industrial and International Linkages

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

Industrial Advisory Board exists but is inactive. (W3)

Meets irregularly. (C4)

ii. Formal mechanism for seeking

feedback from Industry and its analysis No formal mechanism in place. (D2)
for the attainment of PEOs
The formal mechanism is in place but the
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
industrial experience via internship and No dedicated Industry-Liaison office exists. (D3)
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
jointly by Industry Professionals and (D3)
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 / industry. applied research / design project.