Minutes of 9th Meeting of Quality Assurance Committee

The 9th meeting of Quality Assurance Committee was held on October 29, 2005 at 11:00 am in the Regional Centre, Higher Education Commission, Lahore. The meeting was chaired by the chairman of the committee Prof. Dr. Abdul Raouf.

The following attended:

  1. Dr. S. Sohail H. Naqvi, Executive Director, HEC, Islamabad
  2. Dr. Sayed Zahoor Hassan, Vice Chancellor, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore.
  3. Dr. Ghulam Muhammad Taj, Vice-Chancellor, University of Balochistan, Quetta
  4. Dr. Najma Najam, Vice Chancellor, Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpinidi
  5. Dr. Bashir Ahmad, Vice Chancellor, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad
  6. Dr.Pirzada Qasim Raza Siddiqui, Vice Chancellor, University of Karachi, Karachi.
  7. Lt. Gen. ( R ) Mumtaz Gul, Vice Chancellor, University of Peshawar, Peshawar
  8. Dr.Riaz Hussain Qureshi, Advisor Quality Assurance & Learning Innovation, HEC, Islamabad.
  9. Ms.Zia Batool, Programme Development Officer, HEC, Islamabad.

1. Dr. Niaz Ahmad attended the meeting on special invitation of Dr. Abdul Raouf to up date the committee on proposal of International Conference on Quality Assurance in Higher Education.

2. Prof. Dr. Malik H. Mubashir (Vice Chancellor, University of Health Sciences, Lahore) attended the meeting on special invitation of Dr. Riaz Hussain Qureshi to present the recommendations of National Committee on Examination Systems being Chairman of the said committee. While Prof. Dr Saeed Durrani attended the meeting as observer on invitation of the Chairman, HEC, Islamabad.

3. The meeting started with the approval of the minutes of the last meeting of Quality Assurance Committee. The minutes were approved by the members of the committee without recording any observations.

4. Dr. Sohail Naqvi suggested that a standing list of actions/ tasks assigned to the committee members should be prepared and a table of decisions “Not Implemented” should be presented as first agenda item in all coming forth meetings of the committee.

Examination Committee Recommendations:

5. Prof. Dr. Malik H. Mubashir started his presentation on the ten recommendations of the National Committee on Examination Systems and gave a briefing to the Committee regarding background study of the working of National Committee on Examination Systems. All the ten recommendations of NCES were discussed one by one at length by the Committee members and following decisions were taken:

5.1 Decision: Recommendation No.1 of the NCES will be revised with the clarity that all examinations to be held from year 2007 will follow the policy of “No Choice” at Undergraduate level.

5.2 Decision: Recommendation No.2 of NCES will be revised as that a “Course File” will be prepared with learning objectives, outcomes and table of specification and it should be available to all concerned persons including students.

6. The recommendation No.4 of the NCES which was regarding elimination of second/extra chance of examination under any circumstances was discussed in detail by the entire Committee. Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Taj suggested that there are certain reasons beyond human control for which the possibility of second / extra chance should be given. Dr. Naqvi agreed that factors beyond human control such as recent example of Earth Quake should be considered while taking the decision regarding second / extra chance under special circumstances. Dr. Najma supported that we are dealing with human beings therefore; flexibility in policies is recommendable to work with ground realities. Dr. Pirzada Qasim also supported the idea of considering special circumstances for approval of an extra chance of examination. Dr. Zahoor Hassan disagreed and suggested that once the possibility of second/ extra chance will be eliminated, the students will become more serious regarding examination. The discussion on this specific matter concluded with the decision proposed by Dr. Abdul Raouf. And the discussion proceeded with rest of the recommendations of NCES.

6.1 Decision: In case, a student fails in an examination should wait for six months at least before appearing to second chance of examination.

6.2 Decision: The recommendation No.4 of the NCES will be revised as that grace marks should not be allowed in any circumstances by the year 2007.

6.3 Decision: The recommendation No.5 of the NCES will be removed from the final recommendations which was regarding discouraging the “Seen Questions”

6.4 Decision: Recommendation No.6 of the NCES will be revised as that descriptive questions should preferably by done away with except where writing skills, concepts or ability to dialogue need to be evaluated.

6.5 Decision: Recommendation No.7 of the NCES will be amended with addition of focusing on use of Multiple Tools” in the preparation of examination papers.

7. The presentation on Examination systems was found of special interest by the committee members and ample discussion on the subject took place however, it was felt by the members that seriousness of the matter needs more attention and copies of the complete report of NCES should be circulated to all the members for more fruitful discussion on the subject in future. The copies of presentation and complete report of the NCES were circulated amongst members on table and this agenda item concluded with the following decision:

7.1 NCES will revise the recommendations in the light of feed back and suggestions of the Quality Assurance Committee to address the policy loop holes and will make the second presentation to QAC in near future. Dr. Zahoor Hassan will cooperate with NCES to revise the draft on special request of Dr. Mubashir and approval of Dr. Sohail Naqvi.

8. The discussion moved forward with next agenda item regarding decision on “Open Defense of PhD Thesis”. Dr. Bashir submitted that University of Agriculture, Faisalabad has already adopted the system of open defense for PhD Thesis. Dr. Pirzada Qasim and Dr. Najma also shared with the committee members that their universities are practicing the open defense already. Gen. Mumtaz Gul suggested that present form of open defense practiced in the universities is just an eye wash therefore, we should move towards real spirit of open defense by making it more effective. Dr. Abdul Raouf disagreed with making it hard and fast rule for award of PhD degree. Dr. Riaz Qureshi argued that it will improve the standards of quality and transparency in to PhD programme. Dr. Zahoor suggested that to improve the validity of public defense, three forth of the evaluation committee members should pass the student in defense and every committee member should have separate evaluation. The discussion on the issue of obligation of public defense and improving its validity was concluded with certain decisions.

Rules for award of PhD degree:

8.1 Decision: Public Defense/ Open defense of PhD Dissertation will be compulsory for award of PhD degree and it should be widely advertised for public information well before taking in to place.

8.2 Decision: The flow chart of Quality Criteria of HEC will be revised on the website to reflect the decision with an addition relevant to the box of “Dissertation Defense” by explaining that Dissertation Defense will be for Public and Evaluation Committee simultaneously and the candidate failed by the committee will not be awarded with PhD degree.

9. The project evaluation form prepared by Dr. Abdul Raouf was discussed as next agenda item in the meeting. Dr. Najam Najam suggested that heading of: Basic and Applied Sciences” should be clearly written at the top of the document. Dr. Naqvi suggested that part No. 11 of the form should be shifted to place of part No. 4 for continuity and part “c” should be added to incorporate the component of “Objectives” very clearly defined. The following decision was taken on the subject:

9.1 Decision: The form for “Project Evaluation” will be revised by Dr. Abdul Raouf in the light of discussion and will be circulated to all the committee members for further discussion in the next meeting.

10. Dr. Riaz Qureshi discussed the need for including one special agenda item in the pre-decided and circulated agenda of the meeting to the Committee members. His discussion was followed by Dr. Sohail Naqvi. Dr. Sohail Naqvi gave briefing to the Committee to reflect the importance and urgency of the matter of list of HEC approved journals. He said that we are proposing that QAC will develop a selection criteria for preparing the list of HEC approved journals and then HEC will make experts groups to review the available Pakistani Journals in the relevant disciplines. And final list of the HEC approved journals issued in consultation with these entire subject groups will be referred for promotion, selection and appointment of faculty and for any other purpose. The selection criteria internationally used for selection of journals was presented to the committee member and it was approved by the committee members with minor changes as a major leap towards globalization in research publications.

List of HEC approved Journals:

10.1 Decision: The eligibility criteria for HEC approved journals were approved by the Committee and HEC will create a list of approved journals accordingly.

11. The criteria for “Reviewed Conferences” were discussed by the committee members and it was decided in to three eligibilities as follows:

11.1 Decision: Conferences should be sponsored by a professional body.

11.2 There should be a full paper review as double blind review.

11.3 Publication of paper will be given equivalence to “half” a paper in an HEC approved journal.

12. Dr. Sohail Naqvi shared with the committee members that PhD Review Committee constituted by HEC is evaluating the quality of knowledge being imparted by the universities in Pakistan by physical monitoring of the campuses. The findings of this committee are being recorded in the review report to address the issues raised regarding quality of higher education. Dr. Najama Najam, Dr. Zahoor Hassan and Dr. Abdul Raouf showed their concern that said PhD Review Committee is constituted and working in isolation from Quality Assurance Committee and QAC should be more actively involved in this review exercise. The argument was responded back by Dr. Riaz Qureshi and Dr. Sohail Naqvi by making the point clear that policy making on quality will be the responsibility of Quality Assurance Committee and implementation of these policies should be done by HEC through different bodies. All the committee members insisted that QAC should be at least informed for major steps taken on quality by HEC. Dr. Sohail Naqvi agreed and the following decision was taken in this regards.

PhD review Committee of HEC

12.1 Decision: QAC should be informed about all the relevant decisions/ committees constituted in this regards.

1.2 The final report on findings of the PhD Review Committee will be made available to the QAC.

13. Other Matters: The issue of credit hours fixed for compulsory Pakistan Studies and Islamic Studies in graduate and post graduate programmes was discussed and it was proposed that credit hours will be gradually reduced while looking in to possibility of eliminating these subjects from professional degrees at least and revision of syllabus to make it more effective. The manual for Self Assessment in Higher Education Systems written by Dr. Abdul Raouf and already presented to this committee was approved for publication and circulation to universities and relevant with the funding of HEC.

14. Dr. Abdul Raouf presented the guidelines which could be used in addition to HEC criteria for selection of PhD supervisors. Dr. Zahoor Hassan suggested that we should emphasize on qualitative measures to achieve the goal of quality improvements and not on quantitative measures. Dr. Najma Najam argued that it will not be very effective for improvements in qualitative terms.

15. A diagram showing the process of evaluating the performance of PhD supervisors was also presented by Dr. Abdul Raouf to the Committee.

Next meeting of QAC:

16. The agenda items proposed for next meeting of QAC are as follows:

16.1 Policy for write up structure of PhD dissertation. comments from universities will be invited on the final policy decision regarding language of the PhD dissertation.

16.2 Next meeting of QAC will be held during last week of December, 2005 in Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Sindh.

The meeting ended with mutual thanks.

5