Accreditation, Quality, And Graduate Attributes: A Case of Higher Education in Pakistan by Dr. Hina Jalal This presentation is presented for PhD dissertation defence in 2020.

1. Presenting by
Dr. H. Jalal
Ph.D. Scholar
Supervised by
Dr. Muhammad Ayub Buzdar
Assistant Professor
PhD (2014-2017)
Department of Education
Government College University Faisalabad.

2. Major purposes:
➢Assuring quality
➢Assess the quality of academic programs
➢Engendering public confidence
➢Establish criteria for professional certification
➢Continues improvement of academic quality
Types of Accreditation:
1. Institutional
2. Specialize/ Programmatic
Accreditation

3. Existing Accreditation Councils/Professional Bodies:
1. Pakistan Bar Council (PBC)
2. Pakistan Council for Architects and Town Planners (PCATP)
3. Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC)
4. Pakistan Medical & Dental Council (PMDC)
5. Pakistan Nursing Council (PNC)
6. Pakistan Pharmacy Council (PCP)
7. Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council (PVMC)
8. National Council for Homoeopathy (NCH)
9. National Council for Tibb (NCT)
Accreditation Councils Established by HEC:
1. National Accreditation Council for Teachers Education (NACTE)
2. National Agricultural Education Accreditation Council (NAEAC)
3. National Computing Education Accreditation Council (NCEAC)
4. National Business Education Accreditation Council (NBEAC)
5. National Technology Council (NTC)​
Accreditation Councils in Pakistan

4. 1. Quality as an exceptional phenomenon
2. Quality as perfection or coherence
3. Quality as the fitness for purpose
4. Quality as a cost-benefit relation:
5. Quality as transformation:
Explain quality more specifically
Add proper words rathe single theme
Quality in Higher Education
Five conceptual explanation of Quality in Higher Education

5. Graduate Attributes
Personal
dimension
Employability
dimension
Academic
dimension
Three inter-dependent dimensions
Academic
Subject specialist
Critical thinking
Researcher
Discipline
knowledge
ICTs
Problem solving
Innovative
Breadth and Depth
of Knowledge
Base within
Discipline
Personal
Curios
Effective
communicator
Confident
Responsible
Adaptable
Motivated
Creative
Ethical
Socially aware
Professional
Teamwork
Influential leader
Transformational
Professional ethics
ICTs
Continues learning
Time management
Entrepreneurial
and Career Aware
Reflectivity

6. 1. This study examines the role of
accreditation councils in
programs quality assurance and
development of graduate
attributes.
2. Explores the satisfaction of
stakeholders about program
quality and graduate attributes.
The Present Study
Graduate
Attributes
Program
Quality
Accreditation

7.  To examine the role of accreditation councils in programs quality assurance and development of
graduate attributes.
1. How does NACTE play its role to assure teacher education program quality in Pakistan?
2. What are the perceptions of teachers from accredited and non-accredited programs about the role of NACTE
and MA/MEd program quality?
3. What are the perceptions of students from accredited and non-accredited programs about MA/MEd program
quality?
4. How does PEC play its role to assure engineering programs quality in Pakistan?
5. What are the perceptions of teachers from accredited and non-accredited programs about the role of PEC and
engineering program (EE) quality?
6. What are the perceptions of students from accredited and non-accredited programs about EE program quality?
 To investigate the challenges of accreditation councils in program quality assurance.
1. What type of challenges NACTE is facing to assure program quality and development of graduates’ attributes?
2. What type of challenges PEC is facing to assure program quality and development of graduates’ attributes?
Research Objectives & Questions
Continue to next slide

8.  To find out the contribution of QECs in programs quality enhancement and development of graduate
attributes.
1. To what extent QECs contribute to in program quality enhancement in higher education institutions?
 To explore challenges of QECs to practice quality enhancement in higher education institutions.
1. What kind of challenges QECs face in program quality enhancement and development of graduate attributes?
 To analyse the gap between graduates’ acquisition and requirement of attributes in comparison to
accredit and non-accredit programs.
1. What is the difference between graduates’ acquisition and requirement of teacher attributes?
2. What is the difference between graduates’ acquisition and requirement of engineer attributes?
3. Is there gap exist between graduates’ acquisition and requirement of teacher attributes in terms of accredited
and non-accredited MA/MEd programs?
4. Is there gap exist between graduates’ acquisition and requirement of engineer attributes in terms of accredited
and non-accredited EE program?
Research Objectives & Questions

9. Triangulation Design Mixed Method
Convergence Model
Survey Study Questionnaire
Quantitative
Quantitative
Data
Collection
Phenomenological
Approach
Interviews
Qualitative
Qualitative
Data
Collection
Quantitative
Results
Compares &
Contrasts of
Quantitative
&
Qualitative
Results
Qualitative
Results
Interpretation of Quantitative and Qualitative Results
Qualitative
Data Analysis
Quantitative
Data Analysis
Research Design

10. Research Sample
Sample
Accreditation
Councils
NACTE
3 Members including
head/chairman
PEC 3 Members including
head/chairman
24 HEIs
2 Programs
Teacher
Education
Accredited
80 Graduates
235 Students
33 Teachers
Non-
Accredited
80 Graduates
311 Students
35 Teachers
Electrical
Engineering
Accredited
130 Graduates
480 Students
58 Teachers
Non
Accredited
110 Graduates
340 Students
53 Teachers
21 QECs
*PEC: Engineering Accreditation and Qualification Equivalence Committee (EA&QEC)

11. Research Instruments for Teacher Education Program
Variables Indicators
Accreditation
(9 Items)
NACTE/PEC standards
NACTE Process
Program
Quality
(48 Items)
Program Course
ProgramAssessment
Teaching quality
Support ServicesAvailability
Learning Community
Communication skill development
Problem-Solving skill development
Subject Knowledge
Ethics in Teacher Education
Indicators of Program Quality
(48 Items)
Program Course
Program Assessment
Teaching quality
Support Services Availability
Learning Community
Communication skill
development
Problem-Solving skill
development
Subject Knowledge
Ethics
Graduate Attributes of Teacher
(36 Items)
Subject Knowledge
Human Growth & Development
Ethical Values
Instructional Planning and Strategies
Assessment
Learning Environment
Effective communication
Proficient Use of Information
Communication Technologies
Collaboration & partnerships
Life-long Learning
Professional Code of Conducts
Teaching of English as
Second/Foreign Language
Questionnaire A for Teachers Questionnaire B for Students Questionnaire C for Graduates

12. Variables Indicators
Accreditation
(9 Items)
PECStandards
PECprocess
Program
Quality
(52 Items)
Program Course
ProgramAssessment
Teaching quality
Support ServicesAvailability
Learning Community
Communication skill development
Problem-Solving skill
development
Subject Knowledge
Ethics
ModernTool EngineeringUsage
Indicators of Program Quality
(52 Items)
Program Course
Program Assessment
Teaching quality
Support Services Availability
Learning Community
Communication skill development
Problem-Solving skill development
Subject Knowledge
Ethics
Modern Tool Engineering Usage
Graduate Attributes of Engineer
(36 Items)
Subject Knowledge
Problem Analyze
Engineering Design Development
Investigation
Modern Tool Usage
Engineer and Society
Environment and Sustainability
Ethics
Individual and Teamwork
Communication
Project Management and Finance
Lifelong Learning
Detail of questionnaires is given in dissertation
Questionnaire D for Teachers Questionnaire E for Students Questionnaire F for Graduates
Research Instruments for Engineering Program

13. Detail of parental themes and questions is given in dissertation
Themes
 Effectiveness of accreditation
 Contribution of accreditation council in promoting
program quality assurance
 Accreditation and graduate attributes
 Reflection of program quality
 Accreditation of accrediting bodies
 Conflict-Of-Interest on Accreditation
 Academic Corruption that Influence Accreditation
Process
 Quality of teaching
 Quality of curriculum
 Bridging gap between graduates and industries
 Challenges in accreditation process
Interview A (Members / chairman Accreditation councils)
Themes
 QEC practices and international compatibility
 Procedure to enhance quality of programs and HEIs
 Role of QECs to Promote Quality Enhancement
 Reflection of quality enhancement in graduates
 Role of QECs to promote graduate attributes in higher
education
 Contribution of QECs for program accreditation
 Institution cooperation with directors of QECs
 Challenges of director of QECs
Interview B (Directors of QECs)
Research Instruments from members of accreditation council and directors of QECs

14. Findings
Section I: Findings from the field of teacher education program
o Based on the findings from quantitative analyses of data gathered from teachers, students, and graduates, and
o Findings from the analyses of qualitative data collected from members/chairmen of NACTE.
Section II: Findings from the field of electrical engineering program
o Based on the findings from quantitative analyses of data gathered from teachers, students, and graduates, and
o Findings from the analyses of qualitative data collected from members/chairmen of PEC.
Section III: Findings from quality enhancement cells
o Based on the findings from the analyses of qualitative data collected from directors/deputy directors of QECs.

15. Comparison of teachers’perception about role of NACTE and MA/MEd program quality based on affiliation
with accredited and non-accredited programs n = 33 (accredited), n = 35 (non-accredited)
Indicators Status M SD t Df M.D.
Standards of NACTE Accredited 2.74 .508 3.882* 65.9 .488
Non-accredited 2.25 .529
NACTE process Accredited 3.81 .674 4.614* 66.0 .750
Non-accredited 3.06 .666
Program courses Accredited 4.23 .432 2.085** 55.0 .294
Non-accredited 3.93 .700
Program Assessment Accredited 4.27 .345 2.314*** 56.9 .250
Non-accredited 3.94 .527
Teaching quality Accredited 4.03 .310 .823** 54.9 .083
Non-accredited 3.94 .503
Support Services Accredited 4.09 .585 4.250* 58.4 .755
Non-accredited 3.33 .855
Learning Community Accredited 3.62 .938 -2.894** 56 -.551
Non-accredited 4.17 .596
Communication Skill Accredited 3.10 .774 -.814** 66.0 -.154
Non-accredited 3.26 .789
Problem-Solving skill Accredited 3.34 .688 -5.054* 52.7 -.688
Non-accredited 4.03 .395
Subject Knowledge Accredited 4.23 .396 -2.080*** 60 -.243
Non-accredited 4.47 .553
Ethics Accredited 3.59 .551 2.664* 56.8 .461
Non-accredited 3.13 .845
*p < .001, **p < .01, ***p < .05
Section I

16. Comparison of students’perception about MA/MEd program quality based on affiliation with accredited and non-
accredited programs n = 296 (accredited), n = 250 (non-accredited)
Indicators Status M SD t Df M.D.
Program courses
Accredited 3.84 .692
8.661* 437.8 .639
Non-accredited 3.20 .979
Program Assessment
Accredited 2.92 .608
16.754* 464.9 -0.07
Non-accredited 2.99 .787
Teaching quality
Accredited 3.99 .432
18.122* 370.3 1.015
Non-accredited 2.98 .792
Support Services
Accredited 3.51 .655
11.589* 491.1 .717
Non-accredited 2.79 .771
Learning Community
Accredited 3.18 .844
-2.377** 516.9 -.178
Non-accredited 3.36 .897
Communication Skill
Accredited 2.96 .936
2.320*** 531.3 .185
Non-accredited 2.78 .922
Problem-Solving skill
Accredited 2.79 .736
-4.389* 505.5 -.295
Non-accredited 3.08 .820
Subject Knowledge
Accredited 2.93 .887
4.539* 537.1 .336
Non-accredited 2.60 .838
Ethics
Accredited 2.45 .893
-3.367* 506.5 -.274
Non-accredited 2.73 .991
*p < .001, **p < .01, ***p < .05
Section I

17. *p < .001
Graduate Attributes Acquired Required
M SD M SD MD t (df=159)
Subject Knowledge 2.91 .619 4.03 .184 -1.12 -21.84*
Human Growth & Development 2.98 .820 4.60 .331 -1.62 -22.62*
Ethical Values 2.10 .549 4.68 .319 -2.57 -50.76*
Instructional Planning and Strategies 2.43 .850 4.73 .288 -2.30 -31.56*
Assessment 2.76 .863 4.36 .255 -1.60 -25.12*
Learning Environment 3.08 .997 4.76 .354 -1.69 -20.08*
Effective Communication Skills 2.61 .007 4.47 .400 -1.86 -25.17*
Proficient use of ICT’s 2.90 .991 4.42 .418 -1.53 -20.47*
Collaboration & Partnership 2.44 .721 4.34 .382 -1.90 -32.56*
Life-long Learning 2.53 1.00 4.34 .405 -1.81 -22.23*
Professional Code of Conducts 3.16 .838 4.26 .436 -1.10 -17.06*
Language (English as Second/Foreign) 2.66 .784 4.61 .321 -1.95 -30.32*
Comparison between acquired and required graduate attributes in teacher education field (n = 160 graduates)
Section I

18. Gap of Graduates Acquired and Required Attributes in Comparison to Accredited and Non-accredited
MA/MEd programs
1.04
1.60
2.50
2.27
1.59
1.75
1.77
1.48
1.94
1.83
1.12
1.92
1.20
1.65
2.65
2.33
1.60
1.64
1.96
1.57
1.86
1.79
1.07
1.99
Section I

19. Detailed graphical presentations of qualitative analyses though NVIVO are included in dissertation
Section I
Themes Findings
Effectiveness of NACTE • Threshold standards set by NACTE
Contribution of NACTE in promoting program
quality assurance
• Setting minimum standards for program quality
Accreditation and graduate attributes
• No outcome-based assessment of graduates
• No monitoring of graduate attributes
Reflection of program quality • Through the implementation of NACTE standards
Accreditation of accrediting bodies • Self-evaluation through annual review system
Conflict-Of-Interest on Accreditation • Influenced accreditation practices and decisions
Academic Corruption that Influence
Accreditation Process
• Influence on accreditation process
• Influence on accreditation decision
• Decreases quality of higher education
Quality of teaching
• Focused on quantitative inputs
• Lacks in recruitments
• Do not assess all those attributes
Quality of curriculum
• Curriculum is properly designed to attain the national professional
standards for teachers
• Issue in curriculum presentation
• Upgradation, and revision required
Bridging gap between graduates and industries
• NACTE is not responsible to bridge gap between graduates and
industries
Challenges in accreditation process
• Conflict of interest, lack of resources, lack of quality culture,
political interference, mushroom growth of institutions, eliminating
academic corruption, to meet internal standards of teacher
education, and transparency in accreditation process.
Conclusion based on qualitative analysis of interviews of members of NACTE

20. Indicators Status M SD t Df M.D.
Standards of PEC
Accredited 2.83 .639
2.701** 104.1 .310
Non-accredited 2.52 .562
PEC Process
Accredited 3.66 .601
2.920** 99.0 .302
Non-accredited 3.35 .475
Program courses
Accredited 4.45 .414
4.251** 89.0 .493
Non-accredited 3.96 .770
Program Assessment
Accredited 4.32 .416
2.696*** 104 .256
Non-accredited 4.06 .576
Teaching quality
Accredited 3.55 .601
1.067* 107 .001
Non-accredited 3.54 .565
Support Services
Accredited 3.87 .711
4.193*** 106 .546
Non-accredited 3.32 .657
Learning Community
Accredited 2.93 .816
-2.811*** 92.9 -.381
Non-accredited 3.31 .578
Communication Skill
Accredited 3.03 .970
-3.450* 86.1 -.536
Non-accredited 3.56 .610
Problem-Solving skill
Accredited 3.90 .494
3.762* 108.2 .354
Non-accredited 3.55 .495
Subject Knowledge
Accredited 3.88 .684
3.268* 108.6 .429
Non-accredited 3.45 .700
Ethics
Accredited 2.87 .855
2.090*** 102.7 .317
Non-accredited 2.56 .729
Modern Tool Usage
Accredited 2.95 .917
2.512*** 95.5 .388
Non-accredited 2.56 .681
Comparison of teachers’ perception about role of PEC and electrical engineering program quality based on
affiliation with accredited and non-accredited programs (n = 58 (accredited), n = 53 (non-accredited)
*p < .001, **p < .01, ***p < .05
Section II

21. Indicators Status M SD t Df M.D.
Program courses
Accredited 2.95 .867
-1.98*** 677 -.014
Non-accredited 3.09 .971
Program Assessment
Accredited 2.73 .744
-3.09** 660.5 -.017
Non-accredited 2.90 .863
Teaching quality Accredited 2.92 .697
-3.20* 678.5 -.017
Non-accredited 3.09 .778
Support Services
Accredited 3.78 .765
2.82** 669 1.17
Non-accredited 2.61 .872
Learning Community
Accredited 2.84 .963
-4.65* 725.6 -.319
Non-accredited 3.16 .973
Communication Skill
Accredited 2.90 .973
-3.64* 717.8 -.255
Non-accredited 3.15 .100
Problem-Solving skill
Accredited 2.76 .699
-2.51** 638.7 -.141
Non-accredited 2.90 .849
Subject Knowledge
Accredited 2.71 .917
-2.23** 720.9 -.147
Non-accredited 2.85 .936
Ethics
Accredited 2.62 .930
-5.01* 658.9 -.363
Non-accredited 2.98 1.08
Modern Tool Usage Accredited 2.41 .863
-5.38* 653.9 -.364
Non-accredited 2.77 1.02
Comparison of students’perception about electrical engineering program quality based on affiliation with
accredited and non-accredited programs (n = 480 (accredited), n = 340 (non-accredited)
*p < .001, **p < .01, ***p < .05
Section II

22. Acquired Required
Graduate Attributes M SD M SD MD t (df=239)
Subject Knowledge 2.86 .559 4.48 .440 -1.63 -33.89
Problem Analysis 2.88 .868 4.68 .324 -1.81 -29.34
Engineering Design & Development 2.29 .652 4.83 .238 -2.54 -64.49
Investigation 2.43 .427 4.33 .865 1.90 37.45
Modern Tools Usage 2.29 .768 4.67 .389 -2.38 -43.03
Engineer and Society 2.79 .959 4.05 .998 -1.26 -19.20
Environment & Sustainability 3.03 .069 3.93 .771 -0.90 -16.15
Ethics 3.07 .968 3.90 .837 -0.84 -12.32
Individual & Teamwork 2.79 .849 4.18 .628 -1.39 -21.84
Communication 2.61 .945 4.36 .463 -1.76 -31.77
Project Management & Finance 2.79 .836 4.47 .585 -1.68 -28.28
Lifelong Learning 2.77 .561 4.54 .576 -1.78 -41.57
Comparison between acquired and required graduate attributes in engineering field (n = 240)
all t-tests are significant at p < .001
Section II

23. Gap of Graduates Acquired and Required Attributes in Comparison to Accredited and Non-accredited
electrical engineering programs
1.61
1.61
2.57
1.87
2.52
1.16
1.03
0.87
1.37
1.74
1.70
1.73
1.66
2.04
2.52
1.93
2.22
1.39
0.75
0.80
1.41
1.78
1.65
1.84
Section II

24. Detailed graphical presentations of qualitative analyses though NVIVO are included in dissertation
Themes Findings
Effectiveness of PEC
• Signatory status of Washington Accord (WA)
• The largest and experienced committees
Contribution of PEC in promoting program
quality assurance
• Professional standards
• Implementation of WA engineering profile
• Outcome-based learning
Accreditation and graduate attributes
• outcome-based assessment of graduates
• No WA engineer profile as graduate attribute
Reflection of program quality • Through the implementation of standards
Accreditation of accrediting bodies
• Annual General Meeting (AGM) by members
• Governing body & review committee
Conflict-Of-Interest on Accreditation • Moderate Influence on accreditation practices and decisions
Academic Corruption that Influence
Accreditation Process
• Influence on accreditation process & decision
• Required strong action against academic corruption
Quality of teaching
• Lacks professional teachers in engineering
• Lacks permanent teachers
• Institutional and PEC collaboration can raise it
Quality of curriculum
• Criteria/Standards for curriculum
• Outdated curriculum that required through out revision
Bridging gap between graduates and industries
• Limited role in bridging gap between graduates and industries
• Lack of government interest
• Skill gap exists
Challenges
• Control on excessive growth of engineering programs, counselling
of private sector, reducing gap between PEC and government,
implement policies of PEC, expansion of graduate attributes as per
WA, Conflict of interest, lack of quality culture, political
interference, mushroom growth of institutions, eliminating academic
corruption, to meet international standards of engineering, and
transparency in accreditation process.
Conclusion based
on qualitative
analysis of
interviews of
members of PEC
Section II

25. Conclusion based on qualitative analysis of interviews from Directors of QECs
Section III Detailed graphical presentations of qualitative analyses though NVIVO are included in dissertation
Themes Findings
QEC practices International compatibility set up
Issues in practices
Procedure to enhance quality of programs and HEIs Only follow the guidelines by HEC
SARs and IPE
Adopt own methodology and instruments
Role of QECs to Promote Quality Enhancement Limited to SARs and IPE for HEC
Reflection of quality enhancement in graduates Lack of quality enhancement reflection in graduates
Feedback only
Role of QECs to promote graduate attributes in
higher education
Establish employer surveys
Poor feedback
Limited role
Contribution of QECs for program accreditation No direct link with accreditation councils
Encourage departments for accreditation to fulfil HEC criteria
Institution cooperation with directors of QECs Work as an imposed cell in institutions
Lack of departments corporation
No liberty for directors
Limited resources are given to QECs
Challenges of director of QECs Additional charges of directors, Mushroom growth of programs
Internal resistance for QEC practices, Incorporation of departments in
SARs and IPE, Limited institutional interest, Untrained QECs staff
Lack of research and development, Temporary QEC staffing
Conservative mind set towards quality assurance, Cooperation of vice
chancellors

26. Teacher Education
 NACTE signifies that the educational institution provides a quality education by meeting minimum predefined standards.
NACTE does not regulate graduate attributes development, and reflection of accredited programs in students. NACTE
places a higher emphasis on the inputs of educational programs more than outcome-based education.
 Teachers (accredited & non-accredited programs) are expected revision of the accreditation standards and accreditation
process including the development of a modern graduate attribute and transformative quality.
 Teachers (accredited & non-accredited programs) and students (only accredited program) are satisfied with teacher
education program quality, while students (non-accredited) are not much satisfied.
 The graduates’ acquired attributes do not meet their requirement to perform well in working world. Graduates from teacher
education program whether accredited and non-accredited exhibited that their expectation were higher in comparison to
what they acquired through teacher education program.
 NACTE face the challenges of influence of conflict of interest, academic corruption, lack of resources, trained and
professional accreditors, monitoring of private sectors, awareness of accreditation and documentations, mushroom growth
of teacher education program, and lack of HEIs’ interest in accreditation.
Conclusion
Section I Based on findings from quantitative and qualitative data analysis

27. Engineering
 PEC has had a powerful impact on the provision of engineering programs through threshold standards and full signatory
status in Washington Accord. The accreditation committee focus on outcome-based-education to meet international
standards of engineering program quality.
 Teachers (accredit and non-accredit programs) are less satisfied about the standards of PEC.
 The teachers (accredited & non-accredited programs) are more satisfied about their program quality while students
(accredited & non-accredited programs) are not satisfied with electrical engineering program quality as robust outcome-
based accreditation requires to build trust and satisfaction.
 The PEC faced many challenges as: encouraging industries to take interest in academia, reducing gap in relationship with
industries and government, developing resources for PEC, spreading awareness of difference between recognition and
accreditation, implementing graduates’ attributes as outcomes-base-education, academic corruption, political interference,
and implementing quality assurance policy all over the country.
 Gaps are found between expectations and acquisition of graduates from electrical engineering program. The graduates of
electrical engineering perceptions explain huge gaps in required and acquired graduate attributes integration during
studies.
Conclusion
Section II Based on findings from quantitative and qualitative data analysis

28. ❑ The status of curriculum quality, teaching quality, assessment system, and support services area is
average level but in development process of graduate attributes in students is still a challenging factor.
❑ The universities do not have any strategic professional quality improvement unit that monitor and assess
gradates attributes development. The role of QECs limited to make SARs and IPE only.
❑ There is lack of mutual relationship between accreditation councils and QECs that causes gaps in
promoting program quality and graduate attributes.
❑ The contextual conditions influencing the effective implementation of graduate attributes are overlooked
by the internal and external quality assurance practices with multiple challenges and issues.
Conclusion
Section III Based on findings from quantitative and qualitative data analysis

29. Research Implication
For accrediting bodies
• Aligned standards that promote graduate attributes
• Pay attention on graduate attributes as per NPSTs/WA
• Realise the importance of graduate attributes to reduce skill gap
• Encourage periodic revision of curriculum
• Code of conduct for accredits & train accreditors through foreign expat
For policy makers
• Considered Triangular relationship of accreditation, quality, and graduate attributes
• Implementation of graduate attributes profile in quality assessment
• Build relationship between higher education and industries.
• Act against academic corruption
For higher education community
• Permanent & Independent performance of QECs directors
• Resources & trained staff
• Quality of teaching and curriculum
• Transformative attributes
• Satisfaction & Expectations stakeholders

30. Dr. HINA JALAL
PhD (2014-2017)
Department of Education, GCUF.
for feedback, please contact hinansari23@gmail.com
For entire dissertation click below
http://prr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/handle/123456789/16533