KiDR Surum 1.4 en

INSTITUTIONAL SELF-EVALUATION REPORT
WRITING GUIDE
Complementary to the Institutional External Evaluation Criteria
Higher Education Quality Council of Turkey

2
Contents
General Information ............................................................................................................................ 5

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Aim..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Scope .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Submission and Distribution of the Report.................................................................................... 6
Evaluation of the Report .................................................................................................................. 6
Privacy ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Annex-1 ................................................................................................................................................. 9
INSTITUTIONAL SELF-EVALUATION REPORT ..................................................................... 10
1. Information on the Institution ...................................................................................................... 10
1.1. Contact Information ......................................................................................................... 10
1.2. Institutional History ......................................................................................................... 10
1.3. Mission, Vision, Values and Objectives .......................................................................... 10
1.4. Units Providing Educational Services ............................................................................. 10
1.5. Units Conducting Research Activities ............................................................................ 10
1.6. Organizational Structure of Higher Education Institution .......................................... 11
2. Quality Assurance System ............................................................................................................ 11
2.1. Quality Policy .................................................................................................................... 12
2.2. Duties, Responsibilities and Activities of Higher Education Quality Commissions ... 14
2.3. Stakeholder Participation ................................................................................................ 15
3. Education........................................................................................................................................ 17
3.1. Program Design and Approval ........................................................................................ 17
3.2. Continuous Monitoring and Updating of Programs ..................................................... 19
3.3. Student-Centered Learning, Teaching and Evaluation ................................................ 21
3.4. Student Admission and Improvement; Recognition and Certification ....................... 23
3.5. Teaching Staff: .................................................................................................................. 24
3.6. Learning Resources, Accessibility and Supports ........................................................... 25
4. Research, Development and Social Contribution ....................................................................... 27
4.1. Institution's Research Strategy and Objectives ............................................................. 27
4.2. Institution’s Research Resources .................................................................................... 29
4.3. Institution's Research Staff.............................................................................................. 31
3
4.4. Follow-Up and Improvement of Institution's Research Performance ......................... 32

5. Administrative System .................................................................................................................. 34
5.1. Structure of Management and Administrative Units .................................................... 34
5.2. Resource Management ..................................................................................................... 35
5.3. Information Management System ................................................................................... 37
5.4. Quality of Outsourced Services ....................................................................................... 38
5.5. Efficiency and Accountability of the Management; Public Disclosure ........................ 39
6. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 40
4
5
General Information
Introduction
The Institutional Self-Evaluation Report is annually submitted by the institution with the aim of
following annual self-evaluation processes of the institution and presenting a point of reference for
the external evaluation process conducted at least once every five years. This guide sets forth the rules
to be applied in writing a self-evaluation report in addition to a list of remarks and recommendations
on the subject and a self-evaluation report template (Annex-1).
Aim
The aim of the report is to help the institution recognize its strengths and areas open to enhancement
while contributing to the institution’s improvement steps. The drafting process of the report provides
the institution with an opportunity to benefit from the Institutional External Evaluation Program as
far as possible. The report must be employed for establishing contact and cooperation among
stakeholders, within self-evaluation activities, and for the dissemination and internalization of quality
assurance culture. To enhance the contribution of the drafting process to the institution, inclusiveness
and participation must be ensured in the activities, a process management approach must be adopted
rather than bureaucratic data management, and transparency must be ensured in quality commission
works as well as continuous education activities.
Scope
The self-evaluation report is required to be written in compliance with the template presented in
the guide and include all the requested information, documents and evidence for the institution’s
qualitative and quantitative evaluation by the Higher Education Quality Council. The criteria
presented in the Institutional External Evaluation Criteria document also constitute the basis of the
institution’s internal quality assurance.
Since the institution’s external evaluation will be conducted in a way to encompass the four main
aspects stated below, the self-evaluation report of the institution is expected to answer the following
questions:
Higher Education Quality Council – Institutional Self-Evaluation Report Writing Guide (Version 1.4 –26.12.2018)
6
 What does the institution intend to achieve?

(Mission and objectives of the institution)
 What is the institution’s roadmap to achieve its mission and objectives?

(The governance/organizational processes and activities of the institution)
 How does the institution make sure that it has achieved its mission and objectives?
(Quality assurance processes, internal evaluation processes)
 How does the institution plan to improve its processes in future?

Continuous improvement activities for the institution to protect its competitive advantage
within the ever-changing higher education agenda)
Submission and Distribution of the Report
Self-evaluation reports are required to be uploaded on the Higher Education Quality Council’s
web-based system. The higher education institution’s quality commission chair or a person delegated
by the commission chair will be authorized to log in to the web-based system to upload the report.
Evaluation of the Report
After the evaluation team performs a preliminary evaluation in consideration of (at least one and
not more than five) self-evaluation report(s), the team pays a site visit to the relevant institution. An
institutional feedback report is prepared and shared with the institution based on the evaluation
process that is grounded on the results of the self-evaluation report review and the site visit within the
framework of the principles stated in the Institutional External Evaluation Directive.
When new data or documents are added within the period between the drafting process of the self-
evaluation report and the preparation of the institutional feedback report, the data or documents in
question are sent electronically to the Secretariat of the Higher Education Quality Council. The
Secretariat conveys the documents to relevant team leaders and team members.
The institution might be asked to revise the self-evaluation report on short notice if the report is
found to have lacking points in format and/or content as a result of the preliminary examination. The
edited self-evaluation report is required to be sent to the Secretariat of the Higher Education Quality
Council again.
7
After the formation of evaluation teams, team members can have access to the annual self-
evaluation reports of the institutions they are assigned to evaluate on the “External Reviewer Login”
system designed by the Higher Education Quality Council.
Privacy
The information presented in self-evaluation reports is only for the use of the Higher Education
Quality Council and evaluation teams. It shall not be shared with third parties without the permission
of relevant institution, with the exception of its use in trainings and/or publications of the Higher
Education Quality Council by keeping the name of the institution confidential.
Additional Remarks:
 This guide aims to provide an insight into the scope of the evaluations in each section of self-
evaluation reports and guide the institution by presenting its strengths and areas open to
enhancement.
 Self-evaluation reports are expected to have four main sections (Quality Assurance System,
Education, Research, Development and Social Contribution, and Administrative System)
and be prepared on the basis of the criteria listed under these titles.
 While explicating the institution’s level of meeting the criteria, the points stated below the
relevant criteria might be used in writing the self-evaluation report. Besides, the expected
evidence regarding the levels of meeting the criteria is explained under the titles of “Institutional
Documents” and “Evidence for Improvement”.
 Instead of giving short answers such as “this aspect/system is present/not present in our
institution”, a methodology that will thoroughly illustrate how the relevant process is managed
and operates in the institution must be adopted in the writing of the report in consideration of
the aspects stated in the guide. It must also be noted that any additional specific situation and/or
data peculiar to the institution other than the ones stated in the guide can be included in the
report.
 After providing general information on the institution and the its quality assurance system,
education, research and management system in the first annual report, these aspects are not
8
required to be stated again in following reports. It would be sufficient to provide statements on

the changing and improving aspects and the points that could not be improved. If the institution
is included in the external evaluation program, the report must comprise the improvement
activities carried out in line with the feedback of the Institutional Feedback Report, the tangible
improvement outcomes in this scope, the points that could not be improved, and the underlying
reasons impeding improvement.
9
Annex-1
INSTITUTIONAL SELF-EVALUATION
REPORT
[Name of the Institution]
[Address]
[Date]
10
INSTITUTIONAL SELF-EVALUATION REPORT

1. Information on the Institution
This section must include information on relevant institution’s history, mission, vision, values,
objectives, organizational structure and areas of improvement and must be organized in a way to
encompass following aspects.
1.1. Contact Information
The contact information (name, address, telephone, e-mail etc.) of the higher education
institution’s quality commission chair (rector or relevant vice-rector), whom the evaluation team will
contact during the report review and/or site visit process, must be provided.
1.2. Institutional History
Brief information on the institution’s history and current situation (total number of students,
number of academic and administrative staff, infrastructural conditions etc.) must be provided.
1.3. Mission, Vision, Values and Objectives
The institution’s mission, vision, values and objectives must be summarized in this section to
answer the question “What does the institution intend to achieve?”.
1.4. Units Providing Educational Services
This section must include summary information on the units providing educational services within
the institution (faculties, institutes, schools, conservatories, vocational schools etc.) and the programs
under the umbrella of the units (double majors, minors, joint degrees, program types, languages of
instruction etc.); additional information and data must be presented as evidence.
1.5. Units Conducting Research Activities
This section must include summary information on the inputs, processes and outputs required for
the efficacy and productivity of all the units providing support and services as part of R&D activities
in the institution (research centers, laboratories, project coordination units, technology transfer
offices, intellectual property board, technoparks, pre-incubation and incubation units etc.); additional
information and data must be presented as evidence.
11
1.6. Organizational Structure of Higher Education Institution
This section must include summary information on the institution’s organizational structure and
the organization of its administrative units, department offices, coordination offices, advisory boards,
stakeholder relations management etc.; additional information and data must be presented as
evidence.
2. Quality Assurance System

In this section, the institution is expected to explain its quality assurance policies as part of its
strategic management as well as the methods of determining, practicing, monitoring and improving
its strategies to implement these policies.
In line with this purpose, the institution must present information on:
 The institution’s quality assurance processes, internal evaluation processes and action plans to
answer the question “What is the institution’s roadmap to achieve its mission, vision and
objectives?”.
 The assessment and monitoring system as part of the institution’s quality assurance and internal
evaluation processes to answer the question “How does the institution make sure that it has
achieved its mission and objectives?”.
 Improvements made by the institution to protect its competitive advantage within the rapidly
changing higher education agenda, the ways of structuring and managing the completed or
ongoing works (or projects) in the institution as part of internal and external evaluation of the
institution [program accreditation, laboratory accreditation, system standards management (ISO
9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001, ISO50001 etc.), award processes (EFQM etc.)] to answer the
question “How does the institution plan to improve its processes in future?”.
 How the institution has improved its processes according to external evaluation results, how the
effects of the improvement activities reflect on operation and working methods of the
institution—in other words; how the PDCA cycle is completed—to answer the question “What
is the institution’s roadmap to achieve its mission and objectives?”.
12
2.1. Quality Policy
The institution is required to have a defined process to determine, monitor and improve its mission,
vision, strategic objectives and performance indicators.
Following aspects can be used in writing a self-evaluation report on relevant criteria.
 The relation of the institution’s strategies, priorities and preferences to its mission, vision and
objectives,
 The approaches focusing on mission differentiation in the institution (if any),
 The balances between the units in the allocation of institutional resources,
 The method employed by the leaders in the institution to enable unity of purpose among
employees,
 The definition and announcement of the institution’s quality policy in a way to encompass all
the processes,
 The institution’s method of announcing its quality policy to all stakeholders and disseminating
it inside and outside the institution,
 The practices displaying that the quality policy is adopted in the institution,
 The statement of the institution’s preferences in its quality policy that encompasses compliance
with standards, fitness for purpose or both,
 The integration between the quality management and strategy management of the institution and
the continuity of this integration,
 Defined performance indicators the institution is required to monitor in line with its strategic
plan and the methods of monitoring these indicators,
 Key performance indicators within the performance indicators monitored by the institution and
the methods of monitoring these indicators,
 The institution’s internationalization strategy (if any),
 The institution’s targets and performance indicators designated to achieve its
internationalization strategy, the method of monitoring these indicators and the works conducted
as a result of monitoring activities,
 The institution’s experiences in completed or ongoing institutional external evaluations,
program or laboratory accreditations and system standards, and the outcomes of these
experiences.
13
The evidence required for the relevant criteria is listed below:

Institutional Documents
 The institution’s current strategic plan, objectives, performance indicators and follow-up
methods,
 The institution’s key performance indicators (education, research-development, social

contribution, internationalization and administrative system),
 The methods and periods of monitoring key performance indicators, the units in charge of this
task,
 Quality Policy Document that comprises information on the institution’s education, research and
administration processes,
 Quality handbook,
 The documents demonstrating stakeholder participation in the institution’s strategic planning

activities,
 Internationalization policy.
Evidence for Improvement

 The changes in the institution’s mission and vision over the years,
 The level of implementing the strategic plan,
 The practices and examples on the internalization and dissemination of quality policy and
culture within the institution,
 Examples of practices aiming to protect institutional memory, sense of belonging and culture,
 Practices demonstrating the contribution of the institution’s external evaluation and

accreditation experiences to improvement mechanisms,
 Practices demonstrating that quality management is integrated with strategic management,
 International protocols and their results.
14
2.2. Duties, Responsibilities and Activities of Higher Education Quality Commissions
The authorities, duties and responsibilities of the institution's quality commission must be clearly
defined for the establishment and execution of the quality assurance system.

 Quality assurance system established by the quality commission to fulfill its duties and
responsibilities in the institution,
 The relation of the quality commission to external stakeholder participation, quality

management departments, and if any, other quality-oriented committees or advisory boards
within the institution,
 Enabling the participation/representation of all units within the institution in quality

management works,
 Works conducted by the quality commission for the internalization and dissemination of quality
culture in the institution,
 The method employed by the leaders in the institution to enable unity of purpose among
employees in line with the institution’s objectives and targets,
 The completion levels of the PDCA cycle in educational processes,
 The completion levels of the PDCA cycle in research and development processes,
 The completion levels of the PDCA cycle in social contribution processes,
 The completion levels of the PDCA cycle in administrative/managerial processes.
15

 Working procedures and principles of the quality commission,
 Organizational structure and members of the quality commission,
 Administrative support structure of the quality commission,
 Details of information exchange platforms of the quality units (websites etc.) and the
information systems used in this scope (their list, intended use and scope),
 Documents demonstrating stakeholder participation in the commission activities.

 Examples of methods and practices adopted for the completion of PDCA cycles in all processes,
 Opinions of internal and external stakeholders on the activities of the quality commission and
improvements made in line with these opinions.
2.3. Stakeholder Participation
The participation and contribution of internal stakeholders (academic and administrative staff,
students) and external stakeholders (employers, graduates, professional organizations, research
sponsors, students' relatives etc.) in the quality assurance system must be ensured.

 The form of determining priorities among the institution’s stakeholders,
 The participation of the institution’s internal stakeholders in decision-making and improvement

processes,
 The participation of the institution’s external stakeholders in decision-making and improvement

processes and the related informing mechanisms,
 Structuring of the alumni tracking system.
16

 A defined list of internal and external stakeholders,
 Mechanisms serving to convey the complaints/suggestions/satisfaction of stakeholders,
 Practices displaying the participation of internal and external stakeholders in decision-making

mechanisms,
 Alumni tracking system,
 The role and participation of advisory boards in quality assurance system.

 Practices displaying the participation of internal and external stakeholders in improvement
processes,
 Practices displaying the contribution of alumni tracking system to quality assurance system.
17
3. Education
The evaluation of the institution’s educational processes is expected in this section. The
educational processes must be approached in consideration of the following aspects: The designation
of the institution’s continuous improvement focus and objectives and the persons to implement these
objectives, the practice of educational activities, the evaluation of the objectives both quantitatively
and qualitatively with a follow-up process and the improvements made in line with the needs by
checking the obtained results.
3.1. Program Design and Approval
The institution must have defined processes for the design and approval of the programs it runs.
(The programs must be designed in line with the objectives, including the targeted learning outcomes.
The competencies offered by the program must be defined and announced to the relevant stakeholders
in a way to encompass the related competencies stated in the Turkish Higher Education Qualifications
Framework.

 Design method of study programs in the institution,
 Stakeholder participation in program design,
 Activities conducted to equip students with research skills in every level of education,
 Preparation and public announcement of the objectives, outcomes and course info packages of
the study programs in the institution,
 Ensuring the compliance of program competencies with the Turkish Higher Education
Qualifications Framework.
18

 The institution’s education policy and strategic objectives,
 The relation of program objectives and learning outcomes to Turkish Higher Education
Qualifications Framework,
 Websites announcing programs and course info packages,
 Association of program outcomes and learning outcomes,
 Defined processes employed in program design, approval and update (regulation, directive,
process definition, guidelines etc.),
 Defined student workload credits in all academic degree levels,
 Definition of student workload credit for professional practices, exchange programs, internships
and projects,
 Program outcomes (including generic, core competencies that are not field-specific) and
curricular/extracurricular activities employed to reach targeted outcomes,
 Stakeholder participation in program design,
 Crediting non-routine practices such as applied trainings and mobility programs.

 Practices/evidence demonstrating that the institution implements its education policy and
strategic objectives,
 Programs developed on the basis of stakeholder participation and opinions,
 Enhancements made in programs on the basis of stakeholder participation and opinions.
19
3.2. Continuous Monitoring and Updating of Programs
The institution must monitor its stakeholders, and revise and update its programs on a regular basis
to ensure that the programs ultimately reach their educational objectives and answer the needs of the
students and society.

 Methods used to review and update programs,
 Stakeholder participation in program update activities,
 The institution’s mechanisms guaranteeing the achievement of program’s educational objectives

and learning outcomes,
 Enhancement practices undertaken in cases when program’s educational objectives and learning
outcomes are not met,
 Mechanisms that support the programs seeking to be accredited.

 Annual self-evaluation reports of educational processes (evaluation of course and program
learning outcomes in terms of educational objectives and targets)
 Annual self-evaluation reports of programs (evaluation in terms of program outcomes)
 Mechanisms monitoring the achievement of program and course learning outcomes

(information management system)
 Examples of the mechanisms the institution has established to update its programs in line with
its mission, vision and targets (annual follow-up calendar, putting achievement levels of
program outcomes on the agenda of the senate, monitoring success levels of programs)
 List and examples of the mechanisms used to receive feedback from stakeholders regarding
programs and courses (documents, surveys, forms etc.)
20

 Improvements made on the basis of annual self-evaluations of programs,
 Practices informing all stakeholders on improvements and changes,
 Evidence demonstrating the social contribution of the institution’s program monitoring and
updating works (employment data etc.),
 Evidence demonstrating whether the program has met its educational objectives in a way to
encompass opinions of graduates and business world,
 Defined processes and practices for the encouragement of accreditation activities,
 Evaluation and enhancement works conducted in English preparatory schools/programs (if any).
21
3.3. Student-Centered Learning, Teaching and Evaluation
The institution must design and run its programs in a way to encourage active student participation
in learning processes. Assessment and evaluation of the student performance must also reflect this
approach.

 Policies implemented by the institution with regard to student-centered education,
 Application level of student-centered education policy in academic units,
 Institutional activities to improve competencies of academic staff on student-centered education,
 Determination method of student workload based credit values in course info packages,
 Credit transfer method applied in international mobility programs,
 Presence of elective courses that familiarize students with other disciplines and mechanisms
encouraging students to enroll these courses,
 Effective student advisory system applied in the institution,
 Defined processes employed in the assessment and evaluation of students and announcement of
these processes to students,
 Reflecting 21st century competencies on program outcomes.

Institutional documents
 Incorporation of student-centered education in the institution’s proclaimed education policy
 Defined processes employed in the assessment and evaluation of student success (regulation,
directive, process definition, guidelines etc.)
 Regulations which explicitly comprise the presence of valid reasons that cause the student’s
absence from classes or exams
22
 Regulations on graduation requirements
 Defined processes employed in student advisory system (regulation, directive, process

definition, guidelines etc.)
 Defined processes employed in applied trainings (internships, professional practices etc.) and
mobility programs (regulation, directive, process definition, guidelines etc.)
 Organization of teaching and learning centers
 Mechanisms to receive student opinions and complaints

 Examples of practices conducted in teaching and learning centers,
 Student-centered education practices,
 Workload surveys including student feedback,
 Competencies of academic staff regarding student-centered education (learning-teaching and

assessment-evaluation methods),
 Practices about the student-centered teaching and learning approach within the training of
trainers program,
 Evidence demonstrating that student workload credits are used in professional practices,
exchange programs, internships and projects,
23
3.4. Student Admission and Improvement; Recognition and Certification
The institution must set out a list of explicit criteria for student admissions, and consistently and
permanently employ the predetermined and published rules relating to the recognition and
certification of degrees, diplomas and other qualifications.

 Explicit and consistent criteria applied by the institution in the admission of students other than
those enrolling through central placement,
 Defined processes applied in the institution for the recognition of prior formal learnings,
 Defined processes applied in the institution for the recognition of prior non-formal and informal
learnings (directive, senate decisions etc.).

Institutional documents
 Criteria applied in student admissions through lateral transfer, Foreign Student Examination
(YÖS), double major programs and minor programs other than student groups enrolling through
central placement,
 Defined processes for the recognition of prior formal, non-formal and informal learnings
(regulation, directive, process definition, guidelines etc.).

 Defined processes and existing practices to follow the student’s academic and professional
progress.
24
3.5. Teaching Staff:
The institution must be fair and transparent in all the processes pertaining to the employment,
appointment, promotion and teaching assignments of the teaching staff.

 Maintaining professional development of teaching staff and improving their teaching skills,
 Ensuring the alignment of teaching staff’s competencies with contents of the courses they are
assigned to teach in the institution,
 Design and application of the training of trainers program in the institution in line with the
institution’s objectives and quality assurance system.
Institutional Documents:
 Defined processes in use to monitor the teaching performance of teaching staff, (appointment-
promotion criteria, regulation, directive, process definition, guidelines etc.)
 Defined rules in the procedures of selecting and inviting instructors assigned to teach as adjunct
in the institution.
 Practices aiming to appreciate, recognize or reward the performance of teaching staff,
 Evidence on the training of trainers practices (scope, method, participation info etc.).
25
3.6. Learning Resources, Accessibility and Supports
The institution must have the necessary financial resources to maintain its educational activities
and must guarantee that the learning opportunities are sufficient and accessible to all students.

 Variety of learning resources for student use (facilities and infrastructure) and their management
system,
 Variety of social, cultural and sportive activities that address student improvement,
 Psychological counseling and guidance services offered to students in the institution and their
management system,
 Services provided with existing regulations for students with special needs (refugees, disabled
students, international students etc.) in the institution,
 Decision mechanisms for the percentage distribution of annual budget in terms of learning
resources and supports offered to students.

 Institutional information (the evidence presented in the first section of the guide’s annex can be
used),
 System of forming, approving, monitoring and evaluating student societies,
 Distribution of student service expenses in the budget,
 Student feedback means (surveys etc.) regarding the services offered to students.
26

 Practices related to the students with special needs (their representation, accessible university
practices etc.),
 Evaluation of student societies’ annual activities,
 The list of annual sportive, cultural and social activities addressing students (information on
activity types, themes, number of participants etc.),
 Results of student feedback means (surveys etc.) regarding the services offered to students.
27
4. Research, Development and Social Contribution

An evaluation of the institution’s research processes is expected in this section. The research
processes must be approached in consideration of the following aspects: The designation of the
institution’s continuous improvement focus and objectives and the persons to implement these
objectives, the practice of research activities, the evaluation of the objectives both quantitatively and
qualitatively with a follow-up process and the improvements made in line with the needs by checking
the obtained results.
4.1. Institution's Research Strategy and Objectives
The institution must encourage the research and development activities that are in line with the
academic priorities defined in the framework of its strategic plan, able to create values and turn them
into social benefits.

 The institution’s research strategy and objectives and research policy adopted in line with these
components,
 The fields of integration between the research-development processes and education processes
in the institution and the policies adopted in this respect,
 The fields of integration between the research-development processes and social contribution
processes in the institution and the policies adopted in this respect,
 The local/regional/national development goals and the effects of these goals on the institution's
research-development strategies,
 Encouragement of the conducted research’s contribution to socio-economic and socio-cultural

structure and the evaluation of results.
28

 The institution’s research-development policy and strategic objectives
 The university’s priority areas
 The management of research-development processes and their position in organizational

structure
 Performance indicators on social contribution (local/regional/national/international)
 Systems to promote and support research-development

 Practices/evidence demonstrating that the institution implements its research-development
policy and strategic objectives,
 Evidence demonstrating that the research policy is implemented in undergraduate and graduate
education activities,
 Data demonstrating the results of improvement works in social contribution processes (e.g.
demographic data, labor market),
 Evidence demonstrating active participation of students in research activities.
29
4.2. Institution’s Research Resources
The institution must provide the required physical infrastructure and financial resources for
research and development activities and have policies and strategies guaranteeing their effective
employment (Research policies of the institution must encourage cooperation between internal and
external stakeholders and benefiting from non-institutional funds.).

 The institution’s methods of planning, procuring and using required resources to maintain its
activities in line with the strategy and objectives in the field of research-development,
 Stakeholder participation in the institution’s research-development activities,
 Mechanisms to monitor the results of the institution’s research-development activities,
 Strategies adopted for the transfer of extra-university funds employed in research activities to
the institution,
 The contribution rate of the supports procured from external resources (project support,
donations, sponsorships etc.) to the institution’s strategic objectives.

 Information on research-development infrastructure (laboratories, R&D centers etc.),
 Research-development budget (revenues, external resources, allocation according to priorities,

allocation per unit),
 Fields of institutional competence in research-development (specialties, project fields, patent

fields etc.),
 Cooperation with stakeholders in research-development (expositions, career days, projects etc.).
30

 The changes in external fund transfers to the institution within the past three years,
 Activities conducted to encourage researchers to use extra-institutional funds,
 The improvements made by the institution in physical infrastructure and financial resources for
research and development activities.
31
4.3. Institution's Research Staff
The institution must be fair and transparent in all the processes pertaining to the employment,
appointment and promotion of researchers.

 Defined processes for research competence expected from research staff in the institution,
 Improvement of the research staff’s competence,
 Follow-up and evaluation of the research staff’s competence,
 Fair and transparent approaches within the processes of appointment or promotion of research
staff in line with the institution’s research-development goals.

 The relation between the institution’s R&D goals and the criteria on the promotion or
appointment of faculty members,
 Defined current processes for the follow-up of the academic staff’s research-development
performance (regulation, directive, process definition, guideline etc.).

 Practices aiming to appreciate, recognize or reward research-development performance of
academic staff,
 Training activities aiming to improve research-development competencies of academic staff

(program, method, participation info etc.).
32
4.4. Follow-Up and Improvement of Institution's Research Performance
The institution must periodically assess and evaluate its research and development activities on the
basis of relevant data and release the results. The obtained results must be employed for the periodic
review and enhancement of the institution's research and development performance.

 Assessment and evaluation of the institution’s effectiveness level/performance on research and
development activities,
 Methods employed by the institution to review and improve the activities to achieve its research
goals,
 Announcement of the evaluation results of research activities to stakeholders and public,
 Assessment of the institution’s contribution to regional, national and global economy.

 The system used by the institution to check whether the institution has accomplished its
research-development goals,
 Annual self-evaluation report on research-development processes of the institution and its units,
 Annual self-evaluation report on research-development activities of research centers and

laboratories,
 A list and examples of the mechanisms employed to receive feedback from relevant stakeholders
concerning research-development activities and projects (documents, surveys, forms etc.).
33

 Improvements made on the basis of annual self-evaluations of the institution’s and its units’
research-development processes,
 Evidence on the improvement of research performance (infrastructure, the use of human and
financial resources, university-industry cooperation and such practices),
 Evidence used by the institution to monitor research-development performance (Indicators such

as ranking systems-QS, Times Higher Education, URAP, Entrepreneurial and Innovative
Universities Index).
34
5. Administrative System
The institution is expected to explain and evaluate its governance/organizational processes and
activities.
5.1. Structure of Management and Administrative Units
The institution must have an administrative structure that guarantees achieving the institution's
strategic goals both qualitatively and quantitatively. The administrative board must be able to function
as a constructive leadership team while the administrative staff should have the required
competencies.

 Organization of administrative and managerial units of the institution’s education, research-
development and social contribution processes,
 Management of the preparation, follow-up and evaluation of internal control action plan,
 Distribution of authority between the board of trustees and the administrative committee (senate)
in foundation higher education institutions; safeguarding the balances between exercise of
power and decision-making on academic and administrative subjects.
 The institution’s policy and strategic objectives in managerial and administrative areas,
 Managerial and administrative organization chart,
 Follow-up and management of internal control action plan,
 The relations and working principles between the board of trustees and the senate in foundation
universities,
 Evidence demonstrating the competence of administrative staff in employment procedures,
35
 Methods employed by the institution to assess, monitor and improve its administrators’
leadership traits and competencies,
 Guidebook on process management (definitions and flows of processes).

 Practices/evidence demonstrating that the institution implements its policy and strategic
objectives regarding managerial and administrative areas.
5.2. Resource Management
The institution must have a management system guaranteeing that the human resources, financial
resources and all the estates and assets are used efficiently and productively (a proclaimed
management system document).

 Management and efficiency of human resources,
 Competence of the employed/appointed staff in the institution (in relation to the field they are
assigned to),
 Alignment between the duties of the employed/appointed staff in the institution and their
educational background and merit,
 Management and efficiency of financial resources,
 Management and efficiency of estates and assets.
 Human resources policy and objectives,
 Management of financial resources,
 Evidence demonstrating the competence of administrative staff during employment procedures,
36
 Defined processes in the management of estates and assets (activities such as inventories e.g.,
directives),
 The system and defined processes employed in the performance review of administrative staff.

 Practices as part of human resources policy and objectives,
 Improvements made as a result of the performance review of administrative staff,
 In-service training practices aiming to improve the competencies of administrative staff and
ensure their orientation to the duties expected from them (scope, method, participation info etc.).
37
5.3. Information Management System
The institution must periodically collect and analyze the required data and information to guarantee
the effective management of the administrative and operational activities and employ them to enhance
its processes.

 Information management mechanisms employed by the institution to collect, analyze and report
data on all its activities and processes,
 Support of the information management system in the collection and announcement of values
of key performance indicators that are required to be followed by the institution,
 The integration of the information management system and quality management processes,
 Analysis of the data obtained from the processes supported by the information management
system and its announcement to stakeholders,
 Enabling the security, confidentiality and reliability of the collected data,
 Practices aiming to preserve institutional memory and guarantee its sustainability.
 The institution’s policy on information management,
 The information system used by the institution; its functions and supported processes,
 Defined processes and practices in obtaining, recording, updating and sharing the institutional
information (performance indicators, regulations, directives, evaluation reports etc.).

 Practices demonstrating that the security and reliability of the collected data are ensured,
 Practices to preserve institutional memory and guarantee its sustainability,
38
 Periodic analysis reports on managerial and operational activities,
 Examples on the use of information management system analysis results in improvement works.
5.4. Quality of Outsourced Services
The institution must guarantee the relevance, quality and continuity of the outsourced services.

 Criteria on the procurement process of outsourced administrative and/or support services,
 Practices to enable the conformity and quality of the outsourced services and guarantee their
continuity.
 A list of the outsourced services and their suppliers,
 Defined processes to review the performance of suppliers.

 Evidence demonstrating the satisfaction level of internal stakeholders with regard to outsourced
services,
 Application examples of improvement.
39
5.5. Efficiency and Accountability of the Management; Public Disclosure
The institution must publish information on all its activities, including its study programs and
research and development activities, in a transparent, accurate, updated and easily accessible way.
The institution must have a set of approaches that can enable assessing and evaluating the productivity
of the administrative and managerial staff and ensure their accountability.

 The means and platforms used in the public announcement of actual data on all activities of the
institution, including its education and research-development activities, as a requirement of the
institution’s accountability to public,
 The institution’s policy and implementations on accountability and transparency.
 The information announced to public by the institution and the information announcement
channels (university bulletins, websites etc.).

 Periodic evaluation meetings organized by administrators (rectors, deans, institute heads,
vocational school heads etc.), printed publications etc.,
 Evidence demonstrating the reflection of stakeholder opinions on administrative functions.
40
6. Conclusion
The strengths and areas open to enhancement in the institution are required to be summarized under
the titles of Quality Assurance System, Education, Research, Development and Social Contribution
and Administrative System. If the institution has gone through an external evaluation process before
and an institutional feedback report has already been presented to the institution, the measures taken
to resolve the areas open to enhancement stated in the report, the improvements achieved as a result
of the activities conducted and the descriptions of the points that could not be further improved must
be provided along with a detailed evaluation of the institution’s current situation.

KiDR Surum 1.4 en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KiDR Surum 1.4 en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KiDR Surum 1.4 en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INSTITUTIONAL SELF-EVALUATION REPORT

Complementary to the Institutional External Evaluation Criteria

Higher Education Quality Council of Turkey

General Information ............................................................................................................................ 5

4.4. Follow-Up and Improvement of Institution's Research Performance ......................... 32

 What does the institution intend to achieve?

 What is the institution’s roadmap to achieve its mission and objectives?

 How does the institution plan to improve its processes in future?

Submission and Distribution of the Report

Evaluation of the Report

required to be stated again in following reports. It would be sufficient to provide statements on

[Name of the Institution]

INSTITUTIONAL SELF-EVALUATION REPORT

1.1. Contact Information

1.2. Institutional History

1.3. Mission, Vision, Values and Objectives

1.4. Units Providing Educational Services

1.5. Units Conducting Research Activities

1.6. Organizational Structure of Higher Education Institution

2. Quality Assurance System

2.1. Quality Policy

Following aspects can be used in writing a self-evaluation report on relevant criteria.

The evidence required for the relevant criteria is listed below:

 The institution’s key performance indicators (education, research-development, social

 The documents demonstrating stakeholder participation in the institution’s strategic planning

Evidence for Improvement

 The level of implementing the strategic plan,

 Practices demonstrating the contribution of the institution’s external evaluation and

 Practices demonstrating that quality management is integrated with strategic management,

 International protocols and their results.

2.2. Duties, Responsibilities and Activities of Higher Education Quality Commissions

Following aspects can be used in writing a self-evaluation report on relevant criteria.

 The relation of the quality commission to external stakeholder participation, quality

 Enabling the participation/representation of all units within the institution in quality

 The completion levels of the PDCA cycle in educational processes,

 The completion levels of the PDCA cycle in social contribution processes,

 The completion levels of the PDCA cycle in administrative/managerial processes.

The evidence required for the relevant criteria is listed below:

 Organizational structure and members of the quality commission,

 Administrative support structure of the quality commission,

 Documents demonstrating stakeholder participation in the commission activities.

Evidence for Improvement

2.3. Stakeholder Participation

Following aspects can be used in writing a self-evaluation report on relevant criteria.

 The participation of the institution’s internal stakeholders in decision-making and improvement

 The participation of the institution’s external stakeholders in decision-making and improvement

 Structuring of the alumni tracking system.

The evidence required for the relevant criteria is listed below:

 Mechanisms serving to convey the complaints/suggestions/satisfaction of stakeholders,

 Practices displaying the participation of internal and external stakeholders in decision-making

 Alumni tracking system,

 The role and participation of advisory boards in quality assurance system.

Evidence for Improvement

3.1. Program Design and Approval

Following aspects can be used in writing a self-evaluation report on relevant criteria.

 Stakeholder participation in program design,

The evidence required for the relevant criteria is listed below:

 Websites announcing programs and course info packages,

 Association of program outcomes and learning outcomes,