The draft Assessment and Evaluation Directive was comprehensively reviewed, and the final consultation process was planned.

• It was decided to clarify shared terminology in the directive and make the necessary revisions.
• The relevant working groups were instructed to complete the appendices and add them to the shared file by 28 June 2026.
• All committee members were asked to review the draft and submit their feedback to the committee chair by 2 July 2026.
• It was decided to submit the draft to the academic divisions for consultation following the committee’s review.

Assignment principles were established to ensure the orderly and secure conduct of final examinations.

• It was decided to assign a second invigilator to examination rooms with more than 40 students.
• It was decided to designate a reserve invigilator for each examination day to cover absences or situations requiring an official report.
• The decisions were to be communicated to the relevant committee for implementation in course and examination timetabling.

The faculty’s 2026 quality objectives, monitoring methods and responsibilities were reviewed.

• It was decided to conduct quality assurance activities systematically and monitor progress at regular intervals.
• Units were asked to collect evidence relating to their objectives using a standardized folder structure.
• It was agreed to translate monitoring results into improvement decisions and close the PDCA cycles.

Quality assurance activities conducted during the year and evidence submitted by the units were reviewed.

• It was decided to document completed activities together with supporting evidence.
• It was decided to notify the responsible units of incomplete activities and establish completion schedules.
• Committees and coordination offices were asked to align their activities with shared quality objectives.

Monitoring activities related to accreditation criteria and systematically retaining evidence were planned.

• It was decided that programs should continue their work on accreditation criteria in accordance with the annual monitoring plan.
• Evidence was to be linked to criteria and subcriteria and retained in a shared digital folder structure.
• It was agreed to incorporate monitoring findings into improvement processes at department and faculty levels.

Preparations for program self-evaluation and external evaluation were reviewed.

• It was decided that program teams should update their allocation of responsibilities for each criterion.
• Improvement activities were to be planned for identified gaps in evidence and practice.
• It was decided to coordinate these activities with the faculty’s quality assurance system.

Plans were made to identify unit risks, assess their impact and likelihood, and enter them into the institutional system.

• It was decided to rank risks by significance using the risk rating form.
• Identified risks were to be transferred to the Risk Register Form, and the GÜYBİS entries were to be completed.
• The activities were planned for the 2025–2026 fall and spring semesters under the responsibility of the committee chair and members.

It was decided to monitor identified risks regularly and determine appropriate mitigation measures.

• Risk impact and likelihood ratings were to be reviewed quarterly.
• Administrative staff, relevant committees and administrative units were expected to participate in the control process as stakeholders.
• It was decided to document control results through meeting minutes and internal correspondence and track necessary measures in the Risk Register Form.

The 2026 objectives for preparing course and examination timetables were reviewed.

• It was decided to prepare timetables in line with the academic calendar and unit requirements.
• Checks were to be implemented to reduce scheduling conflicts involving classrooms, academic staff and examination rooms.
• It was agreed to resolve change requests from relevant units in a documented and traceable manner.

The process and schedule for preparing the 2025–2026 spring semester course timetable were established.

• It was decided to obtain course, academic staff and classroom information from academic divisions within the specified timeframe.
• The draft timetable was to be submitted to units for feedback after scheduling conflict checks were completed.
• It was agreed to announce the finalized timetable to students promptly.

Objectives were established to ensure consistent, timely and traceable exemption and academic placement procedures.

• It was decided to standardize application and assessment documents.
• A common assessment approach based on comparing course content, credits and learning outcomes was to be maintained.
• It was agreed to document decisions and their rationale and notify students promptly.

Practices concerning exemption applications, elective courses and different learning pathways were reviewed.

• It was decided to harmonize application forms and required documents across units.
• Open education, taking courses from higher years and similar cases were to be assessed within the relevant regulatory framework.
• It was agreed to ensure documented and traceable credit equivalence procedures for Erasmus and similar mobility programs.

It was decided to identify problems encountered in transfer applications and improve the procedures.

• Transfer committees in faculty units were asked to provide feedback on problems encountered in their procedures.
• The feedback was to be reviewed under common categories of problems.
• It was agreed to improve procedures and guidance documents based on the review findings.

Control principles were established to ensure accurate and reliable assessment of transfer applications.

• It was emphasized that academic division transfer committees must consist of at least two members.
• It was decided that each application file should be reviewed independently by two committee members.
• This practice was to be maintained to reduce assessment errors and strengthen consistency in decisions.

The process for conducting teaching practicums through school–faculty cooperation was reviewed.

• It was decided to clarify the allocation of responsibilities among practicum schools, mentor teachers and academic staff.
• Student placements and the practicum schedule were to be communicated to relevant stakeholders promptly.
• It was agreed to document problems encountered and make improvements for the next practicum period.

Interinstitutional coordination and information activities prior to the teaching practicum were discussed.

• It was decided to update practicum quotas and school allocations in accordance with needs.
• Mentor teachers and responsible academic staff were to be informed about procedures and assessment criteria.
• It was agreed to maintain standardized attendance, observation and assessment records.

Erasmus partnerships were reviewed to expand student mobility opportunities.

• It was decided to identify areas for agreements with new institutions.
• Existing agreements were to be reviewed in line with department needs and student demand.
• It was agreed to inform students about application, course equivalence and recognition procedures.

The scope of mobility agreements and student quotas were reviewed.

• It was decided that academic divisions should submit proposals for new agreements based on relevant academic fields.
• Quotas were to be planned taking agreement conditions and participation data from previous periods into account.
• It was agreed to ensure that mobility announcements reach students promptly and in an accessible format.

The 2026 objectives were established to strengthen disadvantaged students’ access to support mechanisms.

• Plans were made to expand information activities between the Psychological Counseling and Guidance Research and Application Center and the faculty.
• It was decided to establish PDCA cycles for the relevant support processes and monitor their implementation.
• It was agreed to conduct activities with due regard for student privacy and equal access.

Disadvantaged student groups eligible for support at the university and the assessment criteria were discussed.

• Potential group categories were considered following a review of approaches and reports from national and international organizations.
• It was decided to consider refugee students and students with disabilities as priority disadvantaged groups.
• It was recommended to refer the matter to the relevant quality assurance units to harmonize definitions across the university.

Implementation of the alumni tracking system and alumni satisfaction survey was reviewed.

• It was decided to monitor the steps required to implement the common alumni form on the faculty website.
• Academic divisions were asked to complete their alumni-related PDCA cycles and continue their activities during the summer.
• It was decided to report alumni-related activities in a traceable manner.

The alumni tracking form, alumni satisfaction survey and academic divisions’ career activities were reviewed.

• It was decided to await completion of the necessary steps to implement the common form on the website.
• Academic divisions were asked to continue career days and similar activities for alumni.
• It was decided to discuss the details of the proposal for a faculty-wide alumni reunion at the next meeting.

The committee’s 2026 objectives, activity plan and reporting arrangements were established.

• It was decided that the committee should meet regularly twice a year, with additional meetings as needed.
• Academic divisions were asked to submit community engagement activities and supporting evidence using a standardized reporting template.
• It was decided to archive activities by category within a shared folder structure.
• It was recommended to develop institutional communication activities to strengthen cooperation with public institutions and increase student participation.

Completed PDCA cycles were evaluated, and it was decided to launch a new improvement period.

• The committee chair and acting chair responsibilities were reassigned.
• It was decided to initiate new PDCA cycles as of the meeting held on 20 November 2025.
• It was agreed to monitor activity outcomes regularly and document improvement measures together with supporting evidence during the new period.