A Toolkit, Not a Verdict: Redesigning Student Evaluations of Teaching as Unstuments for Assessment and Learning

Student evaluations of teaching (SET) remain the most widely used—and most contested—form of feedback in U.S. higher education. Evidence documents validity threats, including confounding from course difficulty, grading, modality, and student and instructor demographics, plus a persistent gap between in-the-moment experience and longer-horizon learning. Yet SET still anchor consequential personnel decisions and function within market logics that shape course selection and branding. Rather than abandoning SET, this paper asks how the instrument can be redesigned to serve assessment for learning. Using design-based research, the authors synthesized peer-reviewed and grey literature, audited an existing instrument in a graduate business-leadership course, and iteratively developed a revised SET built on learning-centered teaching, customizable course-level items, and a common cross-disciplinary core. The paper presents the redesign process, early implementation evidence, and a transferable toolkit. A redesigned instrument is necessary but insufficient; lasting change also requires aligning instruments with institutional incentives.