Introduction

The teaching evaluation is the evaluation of the labour by a docent to teach and produce learning (Díaz et al., 2007). Although the teaching evaluation started in the USA around the 1970s, it was present at European universities very soon (Referencias). Nevertheless, the Bologna Process was the watershed from which, the teaching evaluation rose in Europe definitively.
From the beginning, the teaching evaluation was discussed as highly controversial, because it was perceived as a suspect of incompetence (Hounsell, 2003). Nevertheless, the critics were focused on other questions such as reliability, biasing, student competencies to assess, or accuracy among others too (Gravestock & Gregor- Greenleaf, 2008). On the other hand, it has been demonstrated the perverse consequences of using the teaching evaluation as resources to arise the success linking to salary (Zuñiga & Joipa, 2007; Silva, 2009).
The teaching activity evaluation of lecturers is part of the institutional evaluation, that aims to improve the higher education quality (Reference Tejedor y Jornet, 2008). In this sense, the majority of Spanish and Latinoamerican universities consulted, claim the evaluation of their lecturers is developed in order to get the excellence (Reference). However, the usual method used is under continuous critics, as several authors have revealed or brought to light (García Garduño, 2014).
University does not get to escape from a point of view reductionist about evaluation. Consequently, it is really hard to run politics and projects where lecturers are involved actively in their own evaluation (Reference, Escudero Pino y Rodríguez, 2010). Teaching evaluation in universities requires a clear and unambiguous regarding what higher education is. Nevertheless, this concept is mediated directly by subjects, their content, and the syllabus structure. On the other hand, not only and unique definition would be valid. Anyway, the teaching quality is closely related to the teaching activity indeed.
The teaching quality is inseparable from teaching activity and this one depends on the teaching context. Context reality is determined by every university, as an organization, and inside of them, by the reality of every School, Faculty, subject feature, including schedules, resources, relations with other subjects, lecturer personal characteristics, student characteristics, etc. Taking into account this context, the teaching evaluation must be addressed as a complex task (Loor Gallegos, Intriago & Guillén, 2017).
As we have remarked previously, it is usual to use questionnaires passed to students in order to gather their opinion regarding several teaching characteristics from their lecturers (Referencias). In fact, the student opinion questionnaire was considered the most empirical-based strategy for high school evaluation (McKeachie, 1996).
Although there are numerous instruments for teaching evaluations (e.g. SET) many universities develop their own instruments for teaching evaluation (Gravestock & Gregor- Greenleaf, 2008). It is remarkable that University Quality Units have a huge effort to improve teaching evaluation. However, the majority of them have been limited to change the questionnaire only. This is not the way to boost the needed transformation that teaching evaluation requires (Referencias).
In sum, although the opinion student questionnaires have been considered obsolete (Aquino, Garza, Minami, & Fabila, 2006), more than a few University Evaluation Units keep using them as the only instrument to the teaching evaluation. As consequence, it is evident a lack of contextualization in teaching evaluation regarding subjects, school, students, and lecturers features.
The University of Málaga is an example of those where the teaching evaluation is based on a questionnaire almost entirely. Therefore, the previous problems commented on are reproduced here. In order to elaborate a more contextualized alternative, a team of lecturers from the University of Málaga developed an educational innovation project whose objects were the following:
To reach all these aims, the project was divided into three phases:
The theory of change (Rogers, 2014) could be summarized as follows. Initially, the teaching evaluation at the University of Málaga is based on a questionnaire applied to students. It does not take into consideration the reality of the classroom: differences between subjects (content, semester, needed resources, etc.), students features (course, age, learning styles, etc.), grade characteristics, etc. In this project, there are a group of XX lecturers and XX students working on it for two years (since the project was approved in November of 2019. The process of evaluation is supported by the impact evaluation approach (Gertlerd, Martínez, Premand, Rawilings  & Vermeersch, 2017). During the project process, there are developing periodical meetings where are faced the topics of interest. The first phase of the project involves debates regarding what new evaluation methodology select. After the decision is made, the methodology will be applied for six months by part of the project members. The third phase involves the analysis and reporting. Besides, the evaluation is considered as a transversal phase. As indicators during the process, will be taken the number of meetings (one every three months at least), the number of attendees members (90% of members at least) and the number of subjects evaluated with the new system (80% of subjects involved in the project al least). Eventually, the project will have reached a teaching evaluation alternative and it will be considered more contextualized and flexible than the current one, satisfying the weakness of the current procedure. In order to evaluate this outcome, the opinion and consideration from the project members will be taken into account, using minutes documental evidence for. Later, it is expected to receive requested from other lecturers and university staff in order to generalize the system, although not before one year. An indicator of this could be the number of requests and what university department.
Into the Theory of Change, meetings and debates are coherent with focus group methodology. This approach is being used for a long time, demonstrating to be really useful in social researching (Kruger, 2005). On the other, this project has three main threats: a possible lack of commitment by participants, and the impossibility of developing by any contextual circumstances (e.g. covid and the interruption of classes) and finally, that the project is less efficient than expected (fig. 1).