Teaching and learning are often competing activities, and this leads to frustrations and may compromise the quality of teaching. As part of a university wide initiative, three modules were redesigned to engage students in research or research-like activities. In order to evaluate this, we developed an instrument asking students about their expectations to research-based teaching. This instrument can be administered pre and post instruction. The idea is, that is that we would expect an increase in students’ expectations to research-based teaching if they have a good experience. The instrument is based on Healey’s model (2005) of four types of research-based teaching. It was administered pre and post instruction to three classes in landscape architecture and biochemistry. Results show that for biochemistry the students’ expectations do indeed rise. For landscape architecture they do, however, decline. This can be explained by the students experiencing too little outcome in relation to time spent. A redesign has been made, and results from this will be reported. In our judgement, the instrument provided valuable input to the evaluation of the modules involved. A factor analysis identified four factors. We would have expected them to be close to the four types of factors in Healey’s model. The factors were far from. Rather it seems that the students distinguish “ordinary teaching” from other types of teaching. We find that this is a quite striking result.