Transforming Teaching Evaluation: Aligning Evaluation with Academic Values

A central mission of colleges and universities is to teach. But if we are honest, our systems for evaluating and rewarding excellent teaching do not consistently reflect that commitment, especially at research-intensive universities.

At UCLA, we have spent the past several years working with departments to reimagine how teaching is evaluated through the Holistic Evaluation of Teaching (HET) initiative, which is situated in the Teaching and Learning Center (TLC). Our goals have been simple: to create a fairer, clearer, more meaningful way to understand, inspire, and recognize instructors for their efforts in the classroom.

We offer our story as an invitation to colleagues at other institutions to engage in similar endeavors.

We Must Reclaim the Public Story of Teaching and Learning

Higher education institutions are operating at a time when national pressure could not be greater. Families are questioning value. Legislators are seeking accountability. Students who have grown up in a new digital age of unlimited access to information are asking, “What makes a college course different from what I can learn online?”

These are all fair concerns, especially if courses are merely a one-way transfer of information from an instructor to a student. But when a course includes active learning, peer-to-peer engagement, metacognition, meaningful feedback, scaffolding exercises, and inclusive engagement — the things we know from decades of research that improve learning — the value becomes clear.

The broader narrative about what universities actually do — especially in classrooms — has too often been overshadowed by debates about cost, politics, or research funding. It is up to higher education institutions to reclaim the story and remind the public what dedicated instructors do to enrich teaching and learning every day.

Traditional Teaching Evaluation Tools Do Not Tell the Whole Story

When evaluating teaching, most institutions rely heavily on end-of-course student evaluations and, to a lesser extent, classroom observations. Both provide useful information, but neither offers a complete picture.

Student surveys can capture students’ experiences, but they do not always reflect the teaching efforts that go into course design or the creation of quality assignments. Personal biases can also influence responses. Often, teaching evaluations reflect student satisfaction more than whether students actually learned.

Classroom observations provide helpful insights from one instructor to another, but they are snapshots in time. They don’t show the hours spent designing a syllabus, revising assignments, giving detailed feedback, or improving a course from one term to the next. Observations also fail to capture the quality of student work.

In short, teaching is more than a performance in a single class session or an end-of-term survey. It is ongoing intellectual work that unfolds over time. Our evaluation systems should reflect that.

Incentives Should Align With Institutional Values

If “excellence” in publications and grants carries the most weight in promotion decisions, while teaching simply has to be “good enough,” then many faculty will understandably prioritize research. That is not a moral failing. It is a rational response to the system.

But if universities — especially research-intensive universities — truly value teaching, our incentive structures should reflect that. We need ways to recognize faculty who invest time in redesigning courses, trying new approaches, and improving their craft. And we cannot reward excellent teaching if we do not have credible ways to evaluate it.

What Is Holistic Evaluation of Teaching?

Guiding Principles of HET Framework

At UCLA, Holistic Evaluation of Teaching (HET) is our attempt to address these gaps. HET is a framework designed to help departments define “excellent teaching” in their own context, create shared standards, and evaluate teaching using multiple forms of evidence. In addition, HET gives faculty greater agency in how they tell their teaching story.

Three guiding principles make up the HET framework:

1. Dimensions of Excellent Teaching
2. Sources of Evidence
3. Evaluation Lenses

Dimensions of Excellent Teaching

Dimensions of Excellent Teaching

Rather than assuming consensus on what constitutes “excellent teaching,” HET begins with a broad definition of excellent teaching that: engages students, is equitable, is learning-centered and responsive, and involves striving to improve.

These four dimensions (whose detailed definitions you can find on the TLC website) serve as the foundation for department-adapted rubrics. This approach ensures that the evaluation criteria are tailored to the departmental context but align with shared academic values across campus.

Multiple Sources of Evidence

The second principle is that teaching evaluation should involve multiple sources of evidence. HET does not eliminate student evaluations (or classroom observation, if used). Instead, it places them in a broader context and expands the range of evidence to include syllabi, assignments, assessments, examples of student work, documentation of course improvements, peer feedback, and more.

The goal is twofold: to provide instructors with a coherent way to organize and present their teaching materials, and to give evaluators structured guidance for interpreting that evidence.

Two Evaluation Lenses: Proficiency and Improvement

A distinctive feature of HET is that it introduces two simple but powerful questions:

• Proficiency: How well is the instructor teaching now in relation to our standards?
• Improvement: How is the instructor working to grow over time?

This dual lens shifts evaluation from a one-time judgment to a conversation about accountability and growth. It sends an important message to instructors: excellent teaching is not merely a fixed status, but a trajectory.

A “Middle-Out” Strategy for Institutional Change

At UCLA, HET is part of the TLC, which is under the Vice Provost for Teaching and Learning. As the central campus unit responsible for supporting teaching across all disciplines, the TLC brings pedagogical expertise and serves as a neutral party in the sometimes contentious arena of personnel review.

Deans and other relevant campus leaders have expressed support for HET, but there is no top-down mandate to participate; rather, departments opt in to the program. Individual faculty also opt in to be evaluated using HET. The combination of clear institutional backing, support from pedagogical experts, and faculty autonomy has been critical to the initiative’s acceptance.

What We Learned Along the Way

As researcher-practitioners, we wanted to study our own process. We took time to interview faculty from our first eight working groups, which gave us a clearer picture of what helps and what hinders the process. A few lessons stand out.

The Right Group Matters

When departments engage in HET adaptation work, they select a faculty working group. Interviewees told us that small working groups (about four to five faculty) worked best. It helped to have a mix of senior and junior faculty because it strengthened credibility and broadened perspectives. It is also important to have faculty with different teaching styles, lived experiences, and areas of expertise. Those differences led to better conversations and more thoughtful practices.

Skilled Facilitation Is Key

HET facilitators play several roles: pedagogical guides, logistical coordinators, timekeepers, and mediators. Faculty repeatedly told us that facilitation was essential. Without someone to manage scheduling, synthesize notes, and keep conversations moving, the work can stall under the weight of competing demands. If you are considering similar reform, invest in facilitation capacity. Faculty are busy. Without structure, even good ideas can fade.

Reform Efforts Must Be Clearly Aligned with Personnel Policies

One of the most important lessons: faculty need clarity about how revised evaluation processes connect to promotion and tenure standards. Ambiguity creates anxiety, and faculty must feel secure in their review process. Otherwise, they may default to the traditional review process. Departments must communicate clearly how HET fits into academic personnel review and ensure alignment with campus-level review bodies.

Communication Should Happen Early and Often

Departments that achieved stronger buy-in engaged faculty early and communicated to colleagues what was changing and why. The working group clarified how the new approach connected to promotion and tenure expectations. They piloted materials before fully adopting them. They acknowledged concerns about time and workload. They framed evaluation reform as a way to give faculty more credit for meaningful teaching work — not as an additional burden. When the larger faculty body understands both the purpose and the process, they are more likely to engage.

Trust Is Essential

Teaching is personal. Talking about evaluation can feel vulnerable. Working groups often needed to create space for honest conversation. When people felt comfortable, they were more willing to raise concerns and propose changes. The facilitators should serve as neutral participants who can lead group conversations and ensure that the dynamics remain collegial, constructive, and supportive.

Change Takes Time

From initial engagement to implementation, the process can take one to three years. Departments move through stages: adaptation, presentation to faculty, voluntary adoption, and eventually, HET’s implementation in personnel review. This timeline is not a sign of inefficiency. It reflects shared governance and the need for genuine deliberation. Trying to compress the process can undermine trust.

The Path Forward: An Invitation To Align Evaluation with Academic Values

We have learned that reforming teaching evaluation requires thoughtful process design. The work has been complex and occasionally difficult, but undeniably worthwhile and joyful. We have worked with faculty deeply committed to teaching and student learning and have seen meaningful cultural shifts in real time.

Departments have articulated clearer definitions of excellent teaching. Faculty report better understanding of expectations. Evaluators have more structured guidance. Conversations about teaching have become more substantive. Most importantly, departments have begun to align evaluation practices with their stated educational values.

Reforming teaching evaluation is about building systems that are fairer, more transparent, and more connected to student learning. The best part? You do not need to start from scratch.

HET was born out of consultation and collaboration with colleagues across institutions already leading national change in teaching evaluation. Just as we once turned to colleagues for help, we designed a Toolkit For Practitioners that details our HET model and offers suggestions for how other universities can adapt it. Ours is not the only approach — many dedicated practitioners are transforming teaching evaluation and sharing their stories (e.g., the TEval project and other efforts referenced in our toolkit).

Changing how we evaluate teaching is not quick or simple. It requires patience, willingness, facilitation, and sustained leadership. It also offers an opportunity: to restore credibility to teaching evaluation, to support faculty development, and to demonstrate to the public that we take educational quality seriously.

It is work we cannot avoid, and, as we have learned, it is work we can do.