Evaluation for improvement or control? Professional development and institutional tensions in Ibero-American Higher Education: the cases of Spain and Ecuador

This article presents a comparative analysis of university teaching quality evaluation systems in Spain and Ecuador, with the aim of identifying their similarities, differences, tensions, and challenges. The study examines current regulations, the institutional structures responsible for evaluation, the instruments applied, and the predominant approaches in both countries. Despite structural differences, both contexts reveal a discourse oriented toward continuous improvement and 360° evaluation, yet with persistent tensions between institutional control and professional development, as well as limited feedback mechanisms to effectively foster teaching enhancement. Among the most representative findings, it is highlighted that in Spain, teaching evaluation is voluntary, which limits its scope, and is strongly linked to accreditation and promotion processes. At the national level, it is coordinated through ANECA, which implements the PEP, ACADEMIA, and DOCENTIA programs; however, the evaluation process is highly decentralized in regional quality agencies, occasionally resulting in territorial inequalities. Furthermore, there is an overemphasis on scientific publications as the main evaluative criterion, to the detriment of other aspects such as educational innovation or community engagement. In contrast, in Ecuador, evaluation is mandatory, centralized, and linked to the continuity of employment for teaching staff under the regulations and procedures set by the Council of Higher Education (CES). A predominantly instrumental and punitive perception of evaluation prevails among faculty members, often leading to adaptive practices aimed at meeting predefined indicators rather than embracing evaluation as a formative tool. In conclusion, the study reveals tensions between professional development and institutional control, as well as between university autonomy and higher education regulatory frameworks in both countries.