Nazim
Nazim
Nazim
Type at
University/College
level in years
Public Assistant 14 Female 38 MA/MSc 15 1 12
Professor
Associate 12 Male 62 MPhil 47 2 12
Professor
Lecturer 62 Other 6 3 29
Professor 12 PhD 32 4 or above 47
Private Assistant Female 34 MA/MSc 1
Professor 7 12 8
Associate Male 66 MPhil 2
Professor 2 61 8
Lecturer Other 3
86 2 38
Professor PhD 4 or above
5 25 46
Public No 0 No 18 No 24 No 9 No 12
Yes 100 Yes 82 Yes 76 Yes 91 Yes 88
Private No 7 No 31 No 25 No 17 No 24
Yes 93 Yes 69 Yes 75 Yes 83 Yes 76
in the development of courses.
Faculty members participate in
in program evaluation.
organizations abroad.
Workload is allocated
Alumni participate in
program evaluation.
curriculum review.
course review.
frequently.
members.
growth.
Agree 85% 91% 62% 44% 41% 18% 53% 47% 68% 71% 65% 53%
Strongly 6% 3% 6% 12% 3% 18% 6% 6% 12% 6% 6% 29%
Agree
Disagree 0% 0% 0% 6% 18% 12% 0% 6% 3% 6% 6% 9%
Strongly 3% 6% 9% 6% 24% 29% 9% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0%
Public
Disagree
Undecided 6% 0% 24% 32% 15% 24% 32% 35% 12% 18% 24% 9%
Agree 78% 88% 58% 54% 46% 44% 56% 41% 47% 63% 54% 46%
Privat
Strongly 19% 5% 14% 14% 12% 20% 17% 15% 15% 14% 14% 27%
Agree
e
Public Institution Type Private Public Institution Type
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Strongly
Strongly
Strongly
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Undecided
Undecided
Undecided
6%
0%
3%
Staff members participate in
0%
The department has a clarified
53%
38%
15%
74%
procedure for handling student administrative duties.
2%
5%
10%
27%
56%
2%
0%
2%
0%
Financial resources are used
0%
9%
6%
Faculty members receive incentives
12%
76%
29%
56%
properly and efficiently. based on their research efforts.
5%
19%
17%
12%
47%
3%
2%
2%
6%
Quality assurance procedures are
6%
0%
6%
The higher education institution
18%
50%
12%
76%
shared by several academic publishes Research Journal(s).
8%
7%
14%
12%
59%
3%
2%
24%
6%
6%
The data is evaluated for quality
3%
9%
The department publishes Research
65%
38%
12%
38%
assurance reasons. Journal(s).
8%
8%
17%
15%
49%
3%
19%
10%
0%
Quality monitoring reports are
9%
3%
6%
The admission standards for
12%
50%
18%
65%
provided to all stakeholders. graduates are carefully specified.
3%
14%
14%
17%
53%
3%
15%
22%
3%
3%
6%
The grading system is fully specified.
9%
Quality assurance procedures are 21%
68%
18%
47%
shared by several academic
8%
5%
22%
3%
2%
15%
12%
68%
divisions within the institution.
6%
0%
Students engage in quality assurance
9%
Data are evaluated for quality
24%
15%
56%
12%
62%
assurance purposes. procedures.
2%
7%
19%
0%
15%
10%
10%
64%
6%
0%
3%
3%
Quality assurance records are
12%
79%
18%
44%
counseling.
5%
7%
32%
8%
0%
2%
19%
71%
0%
9%
3%
9%
Lack of funding resources.
12%
76%
18%
65%
8%
8%
20%
placement cell.
3%
7%
12%
12%
66%
0%
6%
6%
6%
Lack of commitment from the
29%
59%
15%
38%
3%
10%
10%
25%
12%
56%
institute’s management.
feedback to enhance teaching
0%
9%
9%
Inconsistent government policies.
24%
24%
12%
38%
62%
3%
19%
10%
accessible.
7%
10%
12%
14%
56%
0%
18%
15%
47%
5%
7%
15%
Disagree 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3% 3% 2% 5% 7% 2% 0%
Undecided 17% 25% 22% 25% 22% 24% 20% 24% 12% 7% 14% 5%
specific incentives or
in quality assurance.
adequate training.
Institution Type
the institution.
recognition.
resistance.
incentives.
training.
clear.
help.
Agree 59% 38% 68% 74% 53% 50% 53% 47% 74% 38%
Strongly 18% 29% 6% 6% 6% 15% 0% 6% 0% 15%
Agree
Disagree 15% 12% 15% 18% 21% 9% 9% 6% 9% 6%
Strongly 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Public
Disagree
Undecided 9% 21% 12% 3% 21% 24% 38% 41% 18% 41%
Agree 63% 51% 58% 59% 41% 49% 42% 64% 66% 59%
Strongly
Agree 22% 19% 14% 17% 10% 12% 8% 5% 10% 10%
Disagree 10% 10% 7% 8% 20% 8% 14% 8% 3% 10%
Strongly
Private
Public
Private
e
e
e
ed
Institution Type
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Disagre
Disagre
Disagre
Neutral
Neutral
Strongly
Strongly
Strongly
Strongly
Undecid
0%
5%
0%
8%
8%
The academic programs are
15%
49%
31%
13%
13%
58%
regularly evaluated and updated
to meet current needs.
%
51
49
5%
8%
5%
0%
5%
5%
The courses offered in my
59%
23%
29%
50%
11%
program are wellstructured and
organized.
8%
8%
0%
8%
8%
5%
The faculty provides constructive
23%
44%
18%
16%
63%
feedback on assignments and
1st Year
1st Year
4th Year
4th Year
3rd Year
3rd Year
2nd Year
2nd Year
exams.
Year of Study
5%
5%
0%
5%
5%
8%
The learning materials and
26%
49%
15%
66%
16%
resources provided are up-to-
date.
%
3%
0%
8%
5%
The program helps develop skills
15%
41%
28%
13%
16%
47%
24%
that are relevant to the job
market.
3%
3%
0%
5%
5%
Students are encouraged to give
10%
64%
21%
11%
58%
21%
feedback on courses and
Student Data
43
18
21
18
53
18
programs.
0%
0%
Student feedback is taken
Male
8 Male
18%
38%
33%
10%
13%
18%
13%
45%
11%
Female
21 Female
Gender
5%
5%
0%
8%
5%
There are regular opportunities
15%
56%
18%
11%
55%
21%
for students to participate in
program evaluations.
%
59
41
82
18
3%
0%
I feel that my voice is heard in
13%
31%
33%
21%
11%
13%
16%
32%
29% decisions related to academic
quality improvement.
0%
8% I am aware of how quality
18%
10%
10%
41%
21%
16%
13%
39%
24%
y
y
e
e
e
e
e
ed
ded
ded
Agree
Agree
Undeci
Undeci
Strongl
Strongl
Strongl
Strongl
Disagre
Disagre
Disagre
Disagre
Neutral
Neutral
y Agree
y Agree
Disagre
Undecid
0%
8%
0%
8%
The library provides adequate and
10%
26%
28%
28%
16%
18%
21%
37%
0%
0%
3%
0%
The internet and IT facilities are
41%
28%
13%
15%
16%
21%
18%
26%
18%
0%
0%
3%
0%
3%
8%
The department provides sufficient
10%
23%
44%
21%
11%
58%
21%
academic counseling and guidance.
0%
0%
3%
0%
5%
8%
There are clear and fair procedures
15%
18%
36%
26%
11%
50%
26%
for addressing student complaints
0%
and appeals.
0%
3%
0%
5%
The institution offers career
26%
26%
18%
28%
18%
13%
37%
26% services or job placement
0%
opportunities.
0%
8%
8%
0%
5%
8% The workload is too high to
13%
46%
26%
16%
47%
24%
0%
0%
5%
5%
The communication between
10%
15%
13%
44%
18%
16%
58%
16%
0%
5%
8%
0%
8%
13%
51%
23%
16%
18%
42%
13%
0%
5%
3%
8%
0%
3%
5%
0%
8%
0%
8%
0%
0%
0%
3%
implementing internal
When self-assessment
being followed by the
quality assurance
assurance model
institution start
than one)
model?
ISO9000 2% 2010 2% 1999 2%
Quality assurance model of HEC 48% 2020 1% 2000 1%
Quality assurance model of HEC, ISO9000 1% 2021 6% 2002 1%
Quality assurance model of HEC, TQM 8% 2022 25% 2009 2%
TQM 41% 2023 17% 2010 5%
2024 31% 2013 1%
2 years before 2% 2014 3%
2023, December 3% 2015 4%
3 yrar 1% 2016 1%
After 6 months 1% 2017 6%
Holds every week 1% 2018 23%
June, 2024 2% 2020 28%
June,2024 1% 2021 3%
Last year 1% 2022 2%
No idea 3% 2024 2%
No idea, I recently 2% No idea 6%
joined
Two months ago 1% No idea exactly 1%
No idea i think so 1%
2013
Not sure 7%
Yes 1%
=COUNTIF(C2:C40,"Neutral")
=COUNTIF(C2:C40,"Agree")
=COUNTIF(C2:C40,"Disagree")
=COUNTIF(C2:C40,"Strongly Disagree")
=COUNTIF(C2:C40,"Undecided")
=C43/39*100
=SUM(D51:D56)