At the 300th meeting of the University Senate, members were briefed on the Institutional Accreditation Programme (KAP) and the Institutional Internal Evaluation Report (KİDR) carried out within the framework of Higher Education Quality Council (YÖKAK) processes. The briefings, part of a six-session plan prepared by the Coordinatorship of Accreditation, Academic Evaluation and Quality, continue as a regular item on the Senate agenda.
A standing item on the Senate agenda
The plan prepared by the Coordinatorship is structured as six separate sessions designed to inform Senate members about the sub-criteria of KAP and KİDR. Rather than being delivered in a single meeting, the sessions are distributed across consecutive Senate meetings. Each session consists of a presentation of approximately 20-30 minutes followed by a 10-minute question-and-answer segment.
The stated purpose of the plan is to review the current situation in the fields of leadership, governance, quality assurance systems, teaching and learning, research and development and contribution to society; to put forward guiding proposals for improvement processes; and to disseminate the quality culture across the University.
1Institutional Leadership, Mission and Strategic Management
2Quality Systems, Stakeholder Engagement and Internationalisation
3Programme Design, Delivery and Assessment
4Learning Environments, Student Support and Teaching Staff
5Research and Development
6Contribution to Society
What was covered in this session
The session, held on 10 September 2026 in the Senate Meeting Hall of the Rectorate, had two parts. The first part addressed the general framework of the 2026 Institutional Accreditation Programme, covering how the programme operates, the institutional preparation process, the timetable and what is expected of academic and administrative units. Recent work carried out by the Coordinatorship was also presented in this part.
The second part covered Learning Environments, Student Support and Teaching Staff, the fourth session of the plan. Under this heading, the adequacy of learning environments and infrastructure, the academic and non-academic support services offered to students, appointment and promotion processes for teaching staff, and practices supporting the professional development of academic staff were reviewed against the relevant KİDR sub-criteria. Questions and comments from members were taken after the presentation.
The agenda of the same meeting also included the discussion of directives and regulatory arrangements directly related to quality assurance.
Significance for the leadership and governance criterion
In the YÖKAK Institutional Accreditation Programme, leadership is assessed by who manages the institution's quality assurance system, through which body, and with what regularity. Seen from this angle, conducting KAP and KİDR briefings as a continuous item on the Senate agenda, rather than as a one-off preparatory exercise, relates directly to several sub-criteria under Criterion A.
A.1.1
Governance model and administrative structure
Quality assurance is handled as a standing part of the agenda of the University's highest academic decision-making body, rather than as a separate workstream.
A.1.2
Leadership
Ownership by senior management is evidenced by briefings held under the chairmanship of the Senate and with the participation of all its members.
A.1.4
Internal quality assurance mechanisms
Sessions organised around individual sub-criteria provide a regular setting for reviewing the current situation and identifying areas open to improvement together with decision-makers.
A.1.5
Public information and accountability
Information shared in the sessions is also made available to the public through the Coordinatorship's website and the Quality Timeline.
Addressing quality assurance regularly in the University's highest academic body, rather than confining it to the unit responsible for coordination, also helps the quality culture spread from management levels towards academic units. Views and proposals raised in the sessions feed into the institutional preparation work.
Next steps
The sessions on Research and Development and on Contribution to Society will be taken up at forthcoming Senate meetings. Institutional preparation continues in cooperation with academic and administrative units ahead of the site visit to be carried out under the Institutional Accreditation Programme.
