Logo UAB

Evaluation of Centres and Teachers

Code: 101660 ECTS Credits: 6
2025/2026
Degree Type Year
Education Studies OT 4

Contact

Name:
Empar Garcia López
Email:
empar.garcia@uab.cat

Teaching groups languages

You can view this information at the end of this document.


Prerequisites

It is recommended to have passed other subjects related to assessment (Design, Monitoring and Evaluation of Plans and Programs) and (Organizational Development of Educational Institutions).

 
 

 


Objectives and Contextualisation

It is a 4th year subject that intends to complete the training of professionals to act in two big fields in a complementary way: training in organizations and directing and leading educational institutions.

For that matter, it answers the general objectives established in the profile of Pedagogy Bachelor’s Degree, which are: assessing institutions, fostering development in organizations, managing resources and staff, applying strategic plans, designing and developing training activities.

It draws from the educational basis studied in previous years, and it has as references contents related to Education and Educational Contexts, The Organization and Groups, Design, Monitoring and Evaluation of Plans and Programs, Organizational Development of Educational Institutions, Educational Innovation.

Likewise, it is important to consider that this subject will be complemented with two other optional courses, which are: International Quality Models and Educational Supervision and Inspection.

Its general objectives are:

  1. Thinking about concepts related to assessment of institutions and teachers.
  2. Analyzing models of evaluation of institutions and teachers.
  3. Identifying elements and parts that intervene in the assessment process.
  4. Designing processes of differential evaluation (assessment of institutions and assessment of teachers)

Competences

  • Act with ethical responsibility and respect for fundamental rights and duties, diversity and democratic values.
  • Adopt ethical behaviour and attitudes and act according to the ethical principles of the profession.
  • Evaluate plans, programs, projects, activities and educational and training resources.
  • Evaluate policies, institutions and educational systems.
  • Evaluate teaching-learning processes and education agents.
  • Introduce changes in the methods and processes of the field of knowledge to provide innovative responses to the needs and demands of society.
  • Make prospective and evaluation studies of the characteristics, needs and demands of training and education.
  • Take account of social, economic and environmental impacts when operating within one's own area of knowledge.
  • Take sex- or gender-based inequalities into consideration when operating within one's own area of knowledge.

Learning Outcomes

  1. Analyse a situation and identify its points for improvement.
  2. Apply the principles of organizational ethics to the delimitation and development of proposals for evaluation.
  3. Apply the principles of professional ethics to the definition and development of proposals for evaluation.
  4. Communicate using language that is not sexist or discriminatory.
  5. Critically analyse the principles, values and procedures that govern the exercise of the profession.
  6. Design plans for the evaluation of institutions and teachers.
  7. Explain the explicit or implicit code of practice of one's own area of knowledge.
  8. Identify situations in which a change or improvement is needed.
  9. Identifying areas of analysis in institutional evaluation.
  10. Identifying areas of analysis in the evaluation of institutional projects and programmes.
  11. Identifying areas of analysis in the evaluation of the teaching staff.
  12. Propose projects and actions that are in accordance with the principles of ethical responsibility and respect for fundamental rights and obligations, diversity and democratic values.
  13. Propose ways to evaluate projects and actions for improving sustainability.
  14. Providing information on plans for assessing the institution and the teaching staff.
  15. Selecting and applying models, strategies and instruments for evaluating institutional programmes and projects.
  16. Selecting and applying models, strategies and instruments for evaluating the teaching staff.
  17. Selecting and applying models, strategies and instruments of institutional evaluation.
  18. Weigh up the impact of any long- or short-term difficulty, harm or discrimination that could be caused to certain persons or groups by the actions or projects.

Content

1.- Evaluation of centres

  • Conceptualization and general features of institutional evaluation
  • Evaluating to change and improve.
  • Models for evaluating educational institutions
  • Strategies and tools for institutional evaluation
  • Issues and alternatives in institutional evaluation

2.- Evaluation of teachers

  • Conceptualization and general features of teachers’ evaluation
  • Models for evaluating teachers
  • Strategies and tools for teachers’ evaluation
  • Issues and alternatives in teachers’ evaluation

Activities and Methodology

Title Hours ECTS Learning Outcomes
Type: Directed      
On-site – Seminars 30 1.2 2, 3, 10, 9, 17, 15
On-site, big group (lectures) 12.5 0.5 2, 3, 10, 9, 17, 15
Type: Supervised      
Practical exercise developed in groups and delivery through the virtual platform. 32.5 1.3 2, 3, 10, 9, 17, 15
Type: Autonomous      
Dossier reading- teaching units, study and preparation of evaluation tests, development of practical exercises. 75 3 10, 9, 17, 15

 

The methodological approach of this subject centers the main activity in the students’ learning process. In order to achieve this principle, students must be active and autonomous during the process, with the teacher’s purpose of helping them in this task. In this regard, the teacher will 1) give support to students all the time giving them information and resources that they need to achieve learning, 2) look out for the students’ autonomous learning, proposing them different teaching-learning activities (individual and group activities, theoretical and practical activities) under the principle of methodological multivariety.

In this approach, this subject is structured, in its design and development, in two kinds of teaching-learning activities, which we detailed and concretized in the following table:

 

Activity

Hours

Methodology

Learning Outcomes

On-site, big group (lectures)

30

This classes help to present contents and participate actively in their development at the same time. Despite being a type of activity where the spotlight is on the teacher, it is necessary to foster students’ active participation, especially sharing their achieved (or in process to achieve) learning. At that moment, for example, it is when the practicalactivities are presented, which are part of the subject and will be developed individually or in groups.

 

4,5,6,10,11,12

Seminars (small groups-workshops)

15

This classes help to work in small groups to reinforce individual work and small group work (5 people approx.). At the same time, it is an adequate space to discuss and, without forgetting the whole group, customize learning through analysing documents, solving cases or varied activities. Here it is where we go deeper into contents and topics worked in big group.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,

8,9,10,11,12

 Large group classroom activities should allow students to actively participate in the construction of professional knowledge. Although the spotlight falls mainly on the lecturer, it is important to encourage the students’ active participation, not only in large group sessions, but also in working group sessions so as to resolve situations and / or specific problems that may arise in order to encourage the training of students.

Annotation: Within the schedule set by the centre or degree programme, 15 minutes of one class will be reserved for students to evaluate their lecturers and their courses or modules through questionnaires.


Assessment

Continous Assessment Activities

Title Weighting Hours ECTS Learning Outcomes
Attendance, participation and involvement in big grup classes (individual and group activities). 10% 0 0 5, 2, 3, 4, 11, 9, 8, 12
Presentation of group achievement 20% 0 0 5, 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 9, 14, 12, 17, 15, 16, 18
project to evaluate a group school 20% 0 0 5, 1, 6, 7, 10, 9, 8, 13, 12, 17, 15, 18
1 theoretical-practical tests (individual assessment) 50% 0 0 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 9, 14, 17, 15, 16 

For the evaluation of the subject, we consider that there are three key moments: initial evaluation, continuous evaluation and final evaluation.
  • The initial evaluation helps us to know the entry level of students regarding their knowledge about the subject and experience in group work, self-directed work, etc., with the purpose of adapting the program to their features.
  • The continuous evaluation helps us to verify the level of learning achievements in order to respond to diversity and students’ particularities, as well as making decisions about the pace of the program’s development.
  • The final evaluation helps us to verify the level of the learning achieved, taking into account the objectives and competences of the program, considering the adaptations that we have might introduced.
With these basic principles, we have that the student must submit three types of evidence: 2 practical tests of a group nature (1 from the first block (November 12, 2025), 1 from the second block (December 17, 2025), 1 theoretical test -Individual practice and an evaluation project of a center, of a group nature (December 17, 2025).
The individual theoretical-practical test will take place one week after finishing the two content blocks (January 21, 2026). The recovery will be done on January 26, 2026. In order to recover the theoretical-practical tests, it is necessary to have obtained a score of no less than 3.5.
The practices have a training purpose from the point of view of their evaluation, since they can be reviewed by the training group and depending on the task delivered. This review will be done in the seminars that are considered presenting the results of the group work to the rest of the classmates.
The evaluation project of an educational center has a summative purpose and must be a synthesis of the realization, discussion and reflection of the group work. Due to its nature, when a test is failed it can be recovered at the end of the course (January 28, 2026)
Completion of all practical and theoretical-practical tests is essential to pass the course. In the event that there are theoretical-practical or practical tests pending, they can be taken and/or delivered until December 17, 2025. In no case can it be recovered when no theoretical/practical test has been passed throughout the year. semester.

Feedback of every evaluation activity will be given in two weeks after their submission. 

Attendance is compulsory. The supporting documents only serve to explain the absence, in no case do they exempt from attendance. Students who do not pass any of the written tests will have the possibility of recovery on the indicated date

The marks obtained in each of the evaluating activities will be delivered to the students by publishing results in Moodle or in the classroom. Once the grades have been delivered, the students will be able to review the grade in the hours that the teachers have for tutoring.

Attendance is mandatory. In no case can it be less than 80% of the sessions. The vouchers only serve to explain the absence; they are notan exemption for the attendance.

In the event that the student does not appear for the final individual written theoretical-practical test, neither submit the Evaluation Project of an educational center, it will be considered that he or she does not provide sufficient evidence for the evaluation, and the subject will be qualified as non-evaluable, as established in point 9 of article 266 of the UAB Academic Regulations. https://www.uab.cat/doc/oci_normativa_academica_enllac

Linguistic correction, writing and formal presentation aspects will be taken into account in all activities. Students must be able to express themselves fluently and correctly and must show a high degree of understanding of academic texts. An activity can be returned (not evaluated) or suspended if teachers consider that it does not meet these requirements.

Copying or plagiarism, both in the case of work and in the case of exams, constitute a crime that may represent failing the subject:

• A work, activity or exam will be considered to be “copied” when it reproduces all or part of another partner's work.

• A work or activity will be considered “plagiarized” when a part of a text by an author is presented as its own without citing the sources, regardless of whether the originalsources are on paper or in digital format (more info at: http://wuster.uab.es/web_argumenta_obert/unit_20/sot_2_0 1.html).

It is recommended to follow the APA regulations (2019, 7th version). See: https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/recdoc/2016/145881/citrefapa_a2016.pdf

Single evaluation. The student must hand in and take the written test on January 21, 2026.The recovery will be done on January 28, 2026:

  • 2 practical tests  (1 from the first block, 1 from the second block), with a weight of 20%
  • Design and presentation of an evaluation project for an educational center, with a weight of 30%
  • Passingan individual theoretical-practical test, inorder to accredit and guarantee the achievement of the learning objectives and results, with a weight of 50%

The same recovery system will be applied as for the continuous assessment ( January 28, 2026). The review of the final grade follows the same procedure as for the continuous assessment.

Artificial Intelligence

In this subject, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies is allowed as an integral part of the development of the work, provided that the final result reflects a significant contribution of the student in the analysis and personal reflection. The student must clearly identify which parts have been generated with this technology, specify the tools used and include a critical reflection on how these have influenced the process and the final result of the activity. The lack of transparency in the use of AI will be considered a lack of academic honesty and may lead to a penalty in the grade of the activity, or greater sanctions in serious cases.

From the 2nd registration onwards, students who repeat this subject can request at the beginning of the course to take only one final synthesis test.

For more information on the general evaluationcriteria and guidelines of the Faculty of Education Sciences, you can consult the link:https://www.uab.cat/web/estudiar/graus/informacio-academica/avaluacio/en-que-consisteix-l-avaluacio-1345725434468.html

Every individual situation that doesn’t fit with this guide must be communicated to the teacher responsible, to offer if it’s pertinent, complementary evaluation without forgetting the evaluation’s philosophy presented in this guide.


Bibliography

Alonso, M. M., & Isasi, S. M. (2023). Caminando hacia la mejora educativa: Reflexión y análisis en la autoevaluación de los centros de Castilla-La Mancha. Avances En Supervisión Educativa, (39).

Boud, D. y Mollos, E. (2015). El feedback en educación superior y profesional. Comprenderlo y hacerlo bien. Madrid: Narcea.

Calatayud Salom, M. A. (2024). Avaluació i desenvolupament professional docent. Cap al´ excel. lència.

Cano, E. V. (2023). Modelos de evaluación de centros educativos en Europa: Inspiración para un replanteamiento del modelo español. Avances en supervisión educativa: Revista de la Asociación de Inspectores de Educación de España, (40), 367-397.

Casanova, M.A. (2012). La evaluación de competencias básicas. Madrid: La Muralla.

Chavarria, X. y Borrell, E. (2013). Evaluación de centros para la mejora de la calidad. Barcelona: Horsori.

Chavarria, X. y Borrell, E. (2016). Evaluación persuasiva. Barcelona: Horsori.

Chavarria, X. Y Borrell, E. (2022). La bruixola de la qualitat. Conceptes clau per assolir la qualitat de centre. Barcelona: Horsori.

Colén Riau, M.T (2017). Retos y certezas sobre la construcción del conocimiento práctico en la formación de maestros. Barcelona : Octaedro.

Cortadellas, J. y Jorge, A. (2012). La mejor universidad del mundo. Claves para la imprescindible y urgente "reconversión" de las universidades. Barcelona: Profit.

del Pozo, J.A. (2012). Competencias profesionales. Herramientas para su evaluación: el portafolios, la rúbrica y las pruebas situacionales. Madrid: Narcea.

EURYDICE (2013). Cifras clave del profesorado y la dirección de centros educativos en Europa: informe Eurydice. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Subdirección General de Documentación y Publicaciones.

EURYDICE (2015). La garantía de la calidad en la educación: políticas y enfoques para la evaluación de los centros educativos en Europa. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Subdirección General de Documentación y Publicaciones.

Fumenía Millet, O. (2015). Inspección, supervisión, evaluación y calidad en un centro educativo de enseñanza secundaria obligatoria. Madrid: Ediciones Diaz de Santos

Fetterman, D.M., Kaftarian, S.J. & Wandersman, A (2015). Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment, Evaluation Capacity Building, and Accountability. Los Angelels: SAGE

Gairín, J. (2009). (Coord.). Nuevas funciones de la evaluación. La evaluación como autorregulación.Madrid: MEC-Instituto Superior de Formación del Profesorado.

Gairín, J. (2015). Lascomunidades de práctica profesional: creación, desarrollo y evaluación. Madrid: Wolters Kluwer España.

Gairín, J., Díaz, A., Rosales, M., & Sentinella, X., (2014).  La autoevaluación para la mejora de la seguridad integral en centros educativos.

Gairín Sallán, J. (Ed.). (2024). Dirección y liderazgo de los centros educativos : naturaleza, desarrollo y práctica profesional. Narcea Ediciones.

Gairín Sallán, J., & Castro Ceacero, D. (2021). El Contexto organizativo como espacio de intervención. Editorial Síntesis.

Disponible en línia:https://bibcercador.uab.cat/permalink/34CSUC_UAB/1eqfv2p/alma991010385423406709

Garciá Lastra, M., y Osos, J.M. (Eds.) (2015). Temas clave en la formación inicial del profesorado de secundaria. Santander: Editorial de la Universidad de Cantabria.

Gómez Rodríguez, B. (2011). Un modelo de evaluación (autorregulación) para centros docentes. Madrid: Visión Libros

Gónzalez Soto, A.P. (2011). Evaluación para la mejora de los centros docentes. Madrid: Wolters Kluwer España.

Gonzalo,V., Pumares, L. y Sánchez, P. (2012). Desarrollo profesional de docentes y educadores. Madrid: Los libros de la catarata.

Holmes, E. (2014). El bienestar de los docentes. Guía para controlar el estrés y sentirse bien personal y profesionalmente. Madrid: Narcea.

Imbernón,F. (2017). Ser docente en una sociedad compleja. La difícil tarea de enseñar. Barcelona: Graó.

Jordán, J. M. (2023). Evaluación y calidad educativa. Planes y programas para la evaluación de centros en Castilla y León. Avances en Supervisión Educativa, (40).

Jornet, J.M., García-García, M., y González-Such, J. (Eds.) (2014). La evaluación de sistemas educativos: informaciones de interés para los colectivos implicados. Valencia: Universitat de València.

Leman, L. (2012). Los profesores "perfectos" existen. Descubriendo lo mejor de uno mismo. Madrid: Narcea.

López Rupérez, F. (2014). Fortalecer la profesión docente. Un desafío crucial. Madrid: Narcea.

Macbeath, J. (2013). Col·laborar, innovar i liderar. El futur de la professió docent. Barcelona: Fundació Jaume Bofill i UOC.

Mañú, J.M. y Goyarrola, I. (2011). Docentes competentes. Por una educación de calidad. Madrid: Narcea.

Martín, E. (Coord.). (2013). Evaluación de centros y profesores.Madrid: UNED Editorial.

McArthur, J. (2019). La evaluación: una cuestión de justicia social. Perspectiva crítica y prácticas adecuadas.Madrid: Narcea.

Medina, A. (Coord.) (2013). Formación delprofesorado. Actividades innovadoras para el dominio de las competencias docentes. Madrid: Ramón Areces.

Mijangos, J.J. y otros (2011). Enseñanza universitaria de calidad: profesorado, alumnado e institución. Bilbao: Servicio editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco.

Monarca,H., y Asprella, G. (2015). Evaluaciones externas: mecanismos para la configuración de representaciones y prácticas en educación. Madrid: Miño y Dávila.

Monereo, C. y Monte, M. (2011). Docentes en tránsito. Incidentes críticos en secundaria. Barcelona: Graó.

Montero Alcaide, A. (2012). Selección y evaluación de directores de centros educativos. Madrid: Wolters Kluwer España.

Navarro, H. R., & Souza, F. R. C. (2023). Diálogo y reflexión con Robert Stake sobre evaluación educativa y el origen e impacto de los centros de investigación en educación. Revista electrónica interuniversitaria de formación del profesorado, 26(2).

Nieto, E., Cellejas, A.I., y Jérez, O. (Coord.) (2013). Las competencias básicas: competencias profesionales del docente. II Congreso Internacional sobre las competencias básicas "El docente". Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

OCDE (2013).Teachers for the 21st century: using evaluation to improve teaching. París: OCDE Publishing, cop.

OCDE (2023), L'educació en breu 2023: Indicadors de l'OCDE , Publicacions de l'OCDE, París, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en

OCDE (2024), L'educació en breu 2024: Indicadors de l'OCDE , Publicacions de l'OCDE, París, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en

Popham, J. (2013). Evaluación trans-formativa. El poder transformador de la evaluación formativa. Madrid: Narcea.

POZA, M. de f., POZO, M.T. y GARCÍA,B.(2013). Evaluación de programas, centros y profesores. Portafolios del alumno, evaluación de programas, centros y profesores. Granada:GEU.

Roca, J. L. B., & i Benejam, J. G. (2023). El modelo de evaluación de centros en las Illes Balears. Avances en Supervisión Educativa, (39).

Rodríguez Espinar, S. (2013). La evaluación de la calidad en la Educación Superior: fundamentos y modelos. Madrid: Síntesis.

Rosales, C. (2014), reimpresión). Criterios para una evaluación formativa. Madrid: Narcea.

Salazar, M.C. & Lerner, J. (2019). Teacher evaluation as cultural practice. London: Routledge.

San Fabián, J.L. y Granda, A. (2013). Autoevaluacióndecentros educativos. Cómo mejorar desde dentro. Madrid: Síntesis.

Sánchez, S. y Zorzoli, N. (2018). Gestión de la evaluación integral. Aportes para una práctica áulica e institucional democratizadora. Buenos Aires: Noveduc.

Sowada, M. G. (2024). Evaluating Schools : Dynamic Production of Scoring Decisions in the School Inspection Process (1st ed. 2024.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62324-0

Tejada, J. (2011). Evaluación del desarrollo profesional docente basado en competencias, en C. Marcelo (Coord). Evaluación del desarrollo profesional docente.(pp.23-48) Barcelona: Davinci Continental.

Triane, M.V. (Coord.) (2013). Convivencia escolar: evaluación e intervención para su mejora. Madrid: Síntesis.

Vaillant, D. (2007). Evaluación docente: los desafios pendientes y los retos emergentes, Congreso Internacional de Evaluación: factor de calidad educativa, México, 19-20 de octubre

Vaillant, D. y MARCELO, C. (2015). El ABC y D de la formación docente. Madrid: Narcea.

Vázquez-Cano, E. (2023). Modelos de evaluación de centros educativos en Europa. Inspiración para un replanteamiento del modelo español. Avances en Supervisión Educativa, (40).

Verger, A., Ferrer-Esteban, G., Quilabert, E., Moschetti, M. C., & Levatino, A. (2024). Escoles i professorat davant l’autonomia de centre : Reptes de l’avaluació, la millora i la governança escolar. Fundació Bofill.

Villar Angulo, L.M. (2012). Los portafolios electrónicos en el hemisferio de la evaluación auténtica. Madrid: Síntesis.

Zabalza, M.A. y Zabalza, MªA. (2011). Profesoresyprofesión docente. Entre el "ser" y el "estar". Madrid: Narcea.

  

Enllaços web:

AGÈNCIA PER LA QUALITAT DEL SISTEMA UNIVERSITARI DE CATALUNYA, que té referències a l’avaluació de les institucions (http://www.aqu.cat/universitats/index.html) i del professorat (http://www.aqu.cat/professorat/index.html)

AGENCIA NACIONAL DE EVALUACIÓN DE LA CALIDAD Y ACREDITACIÓN: http://www.aneca.es/


Software

No specific software is used in this subject.

Groups and Languages

Please note that this information is provisional until 30 November 2025. You can check it through this link. To consult the language you will need to enter the CODE of the subject.

Name Group Language Semester Turn
(TE) Theory 4 Catalan first semester morning-mixed