The incorporation of university engagement as a mandatory dimension of institutional accreditation has reconfigured the debate on quality in higher education, particularly in regulatory contexts such as Chile. This study develops a narrative review with a comparative analytical approach to examine the evaluative rationalities that structure the assessment of university engagement within national and international quality assurance frameworks. The analysis draws on Chilean regulatory documents and key international models, including the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), the HE-BCI system in the United Kingdom, the E3M Project, the Carnegie Community Engagement Classification, and recent literature on the evaluation of complex university–community engagement. The findings identify three structural tensions that organize contemporary evaluative frameworks: (1) standardization versus institutional diversity, reflecting the trade-off between comparability and contextual adequacy; (2) functional reduction versus systemic transversality, associated with the treatment of engagement as a discrete function or as a cross-cutting institutional dimension; and (3) fragmented evaluation versus institutional integration, linked to the degree of articulation between engagement, teaching, research, and governance within quality assurance systems. These tensions reveal that the evaluation of university engagement is not merely a technical issue of indicator design, but a structural problem embedded in institutional architecture and governance. Based on these findings, the article proposes a systemic evaluation model structured around three interrelated dimensions: strategic purpose, relational processes, and differentiated contribution and impact across temporal scales. This model seeks to reconcile the demands for comparability with the relational and contextual complexity of university engagement, while promoting its integration within the institutional quality cycle. The study contributes to positioning the Chilean case within the international debate on the third mission and advances a conceptual framework for evaluating university engagement that moves beyond indicator-based approaches toward a systemic understanding of institutional quality.

The teaching practicum is a key point of connection between universities and schools. However, its evaluation has traditionally focused on the learning of the future teacher, paying less attention to the learning and transformation processes that this interaction can generate for collaborating teachers, universities, and schools. The purpose of this study was to analyze how the literature has conceptualized and evaluated bidirectionality in the teaching practicum within initial teacher education, identifying its conceptual evolution, the mechanisms through which it occurs, and the evidence used to recognize its contributions and impacts. A systematic review of 71 studies published between 1990 and 2026 was conducted. The analysis shows an evolution from models focused on supervision and knowledge transfer to perspectives based on functional reciprocity, mutual learning, knowledge co-construction, and institutional transformation. Based on these results, a six-level maturity taxonomy is proposed: presence, coordination, functional reciprocity, mutual learning, epistemic co-construction, and institutional transformation. The review also identifies mechanisms that foster bidirectionality, including structured professional dialogue, joint action, hybrid spaces, shared objects of work, and the agency of the future teacher as a mediator of knowledge. In addition, eight guiding dimensions are proposed for evaluating bidirectionality: enabling conditions, relational symmetry, reciprocity of the flow of knowledge, mutual learning, co-construction, contributions, institutionalization, and impact. The results show that the available evidence focuses on learning and contributions, while evidence of sustained and institutional impacts remains limited. The review thus provides a conceptual framework for understanding bidirectionality as a process that can be classified and evaluated empirically, rather than as an inherent property of any university–school relationship.

Professional internships constitute a privileged space for articulation between universities and educational establishments; however, their evaluation has traditionally focused on the learning of the future teacher, paying less attention to the learning and transformation processes that interaction can generate in collaborating teachers, universities and schools. The purpose of this study was to analyze how the literature has conceptualized and evaluated bidirectionality in professional practices of initial teacher training, identifying its conceptual evolution, the mechanisms by which it is produced, and the evidence used to recognize its contributions and impacts. A systematic review of 71 studies published between 1990 and 2026 was conducted. The analysis shows an evolution from models focused on supervision and knowledge transfer to perspectives based on functional reciprocity, mutual learning, knowledge co-construction and institutional transformation. Based on these results, a taxonomy of six levels of maturity is proposed—presence, coordination, functional reciprocity, mutual learning, epistemic co-construction, and institutional transformation—and mechanisms that favor bidirectionality are identified, including structured professional dialogue, joint action, hybrid spaces, shared objects of work, and the agency of the future teacher as a mediator of knowledge. Likewise, eight guiding dimensions are proposed for its evaluation: enabling conditions, relational symmetry, reciprocity of the flow of knowledge, mutual learning, co-construction, contributions, institutionalization and impact. The results show that the available evidence focuses on learning and contributions, while the demonstration of sustained and institutional impacts remains limited. The review thus provides a conceptual framework to understand bidirectionality as a process that can be classified and evaluated empirically, rather than as an inherent property of any university-school relationship.