Table 1 Studies included in the analysis process regarding factors affecting the evaluation of teachers’ medical universities from the students’ point of view
Row | Author’s name year | Country | Type of study | The purpose of the study | Number of samples /sampling/ tools | The most important findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Vahabi. A et al. 2015 [15] | Iran | cross-sectional study | Determine the factors affecting teacher evaluation scores from the viewpoint of the students in Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences. | 384 students were randomly selected, the data collection tool was a questionnaire including demographic questions and factors affecting the teachers evaluation from the students’ point of view. | • The most important factors affecting the scores of teachers’ evaluation from the viewpoint of the students were: teachers’ knowledge on the subject matter (4.53 ± 0.8 out of 5), teachers’ ability to convey the lessons (4.52 ± 0.78), compatibility of class content material and final exam questions (4.40 ± 0.79) • The least important of these factors were gender (3.48 ± 1.01), teachers’ age (3.28 ± 1.14) and conducting tests to measure academic achievement of faculty members (3.1 ± 1.42). |
2 | López-Cámara. AB et al. 2015 [16] | Spain | descriptive and correlational | Discovering competency-based dimensions that evaluate the teaching quality of university professors from the students’ point of view and determining competency-based factors that determine the quality of teaching in each of the extracted dimensions. | 1316 students, the teacher’s teaching quality evaluation questionnaire, approved by the validation experts of 32 Spanish public universities, using the Delphi technique | • The students believed that the keys to evaluating a professor’s teaching activity include these items; teaching method, course guide design (theoretical and practical), professors’ attitude, internal coherence of educational resources, information about evaluation systems |
3 | Yaminfirooz. M et al. 2017 [4] | Iran | cross-sectional descriptive-analytic study | identify the most important criteria which were used to assess professors by their students. | Studying all fields and degrees of Babol University of Medical Sciences (315 students). Data Collection tools; Vahabi et al.‘s questionnaire includes 24 questions in four areas: personal characteristics, teaching skills, educational rules, and communication skills. | • Among the 24 examined criteria, the teacher’s mastery of the subject, the ability to understand the course material (both with an average of 4.83 ± 0.40), the ability to communicate with students (4.54 ± 0.62), compliance with the content The academic level of the learners with an average of (4.50 ± 0.61) was the most important criterion for the students in evaluating the professors, • Some criteria such as age, sex, appearance, and humor did not have a great impact on the evaluation of the professors • The type of evaluation of the students There is a significant difference based on gender and educational level (p < 0.05). |
4 | Sepahi. V et al. 2016 [17] | Iran | descriptive analytical study | Examining the factors affecting the evaluation of professors from the students’ point of view and its relationship with the academic status | 554 students, simple random sampling, data collection tool, researcher-made questionnaire with 37 questions including 5 areas: teacher’s teaching skills, teacher’s personal characteristics, student’s personal characteristics and attitude, physical characteristics and lesson delivery time, and characteristics of the evaluation process in University | • There was no significant relationship found between the factors affecting teaching skills and the personal characteristics of students on their evaluation of professors by their academic status. • The results showed that personal characteristics, the attitude of students, and the timing of class delivery, from the students’ perspective, are factors that have a significant relationship with the academic status of students in their evaluation of professors (p = 0.037 and p = 0.040). |
5 | Soriano. G et al. 2017 [18] | Philippines | descriptive-survey | Identifying nursing students’ and clinical instructors’ perceptions of the characteristics of a good clinical professor and whether there are differences and commonalities between these two groups. | 80 fourth-year nursing students from College of Nursing, purposive sampling, using the Nursing Clinical Professors Effectiveness Questionnaire (NCTEI) prepared by Knox and Morgan (1987) | • The professor’s teaching ability got the least points and personality traits got the most points from the students’ point of view. • The clinical teaching behaviors with the highest scores by the students were placed in the personality category. • The top three educational behaviors of a professor include; It was discipline, self-confidence, dynamism and being energetic. Other top items include; Interpersonal relationships and nursing competence. |
6 | Spark. MJ et al. 2017 [19] | Australia | Cross-sectional study | Examining the characteristics of La Trobe pharmacy students (Australia) as characteristics of a good lecturer (faculty member) and comparing the findings with undergraduate pharmacy students at Cardiff University, Wales, England (UK) | 183 students, a 22-question questionnaire prepared by the Cardiff faculty for Latrobe University students included 22 questions describing the characteristics of a good lecturer using a 5-point Likert scale. | • Pharmacy students believed that good instructors (faculty) provided clear guidelines and evaluation criteria, were enthusiastic about teaching, encouraged students to do their best, motivated students to learn, were available for support, and made teaching sessions They started on time. They also provided timely feedback and demonstrated the relevance of materials to pharmaceuticals. • Australian and UK pharmacy graduates in this study shared similar views on most aspects of positive faculty characteristics. |
7 | Kavosi. Z et al. 2017 [20] | Iran | descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study | Evaluation of existing evaluation criteria in the form of evaluation of students from the professors of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences | 240 students of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, stratified sampling according to the size of the population, two-part questionnaire, the first part including the demographic characteristics of the participants and the second part including questions related to the six main items in the evaluation form of professors; “Attracting students’ attention during teaching”, “Using interactive and new teaching techniques”, “Ability to make the subject understandable and motivating, “Timeliness”, “Proper communication” and “Proper planning” | • Of the six evaluation criteria, “attracting students’ attention” had the highest weight, followed by “using interactive and innovative teaching methods,” “ability to understand the subject and create motivation,” " punctuality,” “appropriate communication,” and “appropriate planning.” |
8 | Hamedi-Asl. P et al. 2018 [21] | Iran | descriptive - cross-sectional | Determining the effective factors on the professor’s evaluation score from the students’ point of view at Jahrom University of Medical Sciences in 2016 | 287 students of various fields working in Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, required information using the demographic profile form and the standard questionnaire of factors affecting students’ opinions about professors’ evaluation | • There is a significant difference between male and female students regarding the importance of teaching skills in teacher evaluation (p = 0.001). Female students scored higher than males in this field. • A significant difference was observed between the students of different semesters regarding the importance of individual characteristics, teaching skills, communication skills and educational rules in the evaluation of professors (p 0.05). • The most important areas affecting students’ evaluation of better professors included teaching skills, communication skills, educational rules, and personal characteristics. • 75.46% of students believed that teaching skills are the most important area influencing the evaluation of professors. Communication skills (67.99%), educational rules (63.92%) and personal characteristics (49.58%) were ranked second to fourth. • The findings of the research showed that teaching skills are the most important factors for students in evaluating professors, and communication skills, educational rules, and individual characteristics are other important factors in this field. |
9 | Shareinia. H et al. 2018 [22] | Iran | cross-sectional study | Determining the relationship between social and academic cohesion of students with the evaluation of professors of Gonabad University of Medical Sciences in 2016 | 307 continuous undergraduate students of Gonabad University of Medical Sciences in 2016, selected by stratified random method, tools; Demographic information questionnaire, standard tool of academic and social cohesion, as well as academic faculty performance quality questionnaire | • Among the dimensions of social cohesion, the highest score (29.4 ± 08.59) was related to peer group interactions, and among the dimensions of academic cohesion, the highest score (26.4 ± 34.32) was related to academic and intellectual progress. • Among the evaluation dimensions of professors’ performance quality, the highest score was related to class management (27.4 ± 63.85). • Pearson’s correlation test showed that there is a direct and significant relationship between the overall score of social and academic cohesion and the overall score of evaluating the quality of professors’ performance (p = 0.04, p < 0.001, r = 0.11 and r = 0.53, respectively). • According to the results of the linear regression test, for each increase in social cohesion, the evaluation score of professors increased by 0.11 and for academic cohesion, the evaluation score of professors increased by 0.53. |
10 | Yaghoubi. M et al. 2018 [23] | Iran | cross-sectional study | Investigating the factors affecting the educational evaluation of professors from the point of view of professors and students | The sample studied in the factor analysis phase was 84 students and in the cross-sectional phase 344 students of the University of Military Medical Sciences in Tehran. the tool used; Educational evaluation questionnaire of professors obtained from confirmatory factor analysis | • Based on factor analysis, all dimensions of professors’ educational evaluation had a significant effect at the confidence level of 99%. • The standard regression coefficient was 0.48 in teaching quality, 0.43 in individual characteristics, 0.29 in educational rules and 0.37 in professional characteristics. • Among the dimensions of educational evaluation of professors from the students’ point of view, the dimension of personal characteristics (3.66 ± 0.82) had the highest mean. • The mean and standard deviation of the total educational evaluation of professors was found to be (3.37 ± 0.61). • Friedman’s test showed that the dimension of individual characteristics has the highest rank among other dimensions and the average difference between the dimensions is statistically significant. |
11 | Ganbari. S et al. 2018 [24] | Iran | descriptive and correlation | Investigating the effect of evaluation of professors by students on the teaching quality of faculty members | stratified random sampling method according to the size of each class based on the educational level of 195 students, data collection tools, two standard evaluation questionnaires of professors’ performance and teaching quality | • The dimensions of evaluation of professors: teaching method, mastery and academic ability, and personal and social characteristics of the professor have a positive and significant effect on the teaching quality of faculty members. |
12 | Heidari. AA et al. 2018 [25] | Iran | qualitative Study | Explaining the opinions of the assistants regarding the teaching of the professors of Mashhad Medical School | 639 assistants, collecting data with survey forms based on Likert scale and an open question and finally analyzing the views, perceptions and experiences of assistants in two categories with positive and negative opinions. | • The themes that emerged in this study regarding the teaching of professors included professional qualifications (with subcategories of academic competence, interest, and practical skills) and personal characteristics (with subcategories of personal qualities and ethical behavior). |
13 | El-Sayed. M et al. 2018 [26] | Oman | cross-sectional | Investigating medical students’ understanding of teaching evaluation feedback and investigating medical students’ beliefs about the importance and usefulness of feedback at the end of the course | 192 pre-clinical students in Oman Medical College, a 26-question questionnaire to evaluate medical students’ perception of professors’ teaching evaluation, the four main topics evaluated in the questionnaire include; The usefulness of teaching evaluation by faculty members, the usefulness of teaching evaluation by college management, knowledge of the teaching evaluation process and valid criteria for evaluating professors. | • The following criteria are necessary for effective evaluation of professors: expertise in content (71.35%), ability to attract students’ attention (83.85%), promotion of critical thinking (77.08%), effective use of audiovisual equipment (78.65%), encouragement and motivation of students (77.08%), and demonstration of participant enjoyment (81.77%). • Most students felt that professors use student feedback information to improve the course (58.85%), to amend evaluation methods and procedures (54.16%), and to promote learner-centered teaching (41.65%). • They strongly felt (60.40%) that teaching evaluation should be done mid-semester rather than at the end of the academic year. |
14 | Arasteh. MT et al. 2018 [27] | Iran | cross-sectional | Determining the conformity of professors’ self-evaluation results and the evaluation results of other groups | Using 43 questions in the form of 5 questionnaires, 120 faculty members were evaluated by students, colleagues, faculty members and the faculty dean. The research community is all faculty members (as lecturers) and students of different faculties of this university, 1100 students (from 4 levels of doctorate, master’s degree, bachelor’s and associate degree) and 120 faculty members. | • The important points of attention of the students in the evaluation of the professors included these items; The use of educational aids within the scope of the facilities and appropriate to the type of course, the ability to manage the classroom, the suitability of the taught content with the student’s educational needs, encouraging students to learn, appropriate social behavior and mutual respect with students, allocating enough time to answer questions. students, forcing students to participate in discussions, the ability to express and understand course objectives, introducing suitable resources, fully explaining the objectives of the course, presenting lessons in a practical manner with suitable examples, fully mastering the course content, observing cultural and ethical issues in the classroom Determining how to evaluate from the beginning of teaching, motivating students to continue their studies, regular attendance and proper use of class time, evaluating students through appropriate questions during the semester, paying attention to students’ attendance and absence, presenting lesson plans and observing class time. |
15 | Rahimi Moghadam. S et al. 2019 [28] | Iran | cross-sectional descriptive and analytical study | Examining the evaluation priorities of professors from the perspective of students of Neishabur University of Medical Sciences | 140 students of Neishabur Faculty of Medical Sciences, according to census. Using the questionnaire made in the study of Heydari et al. | • According to the students, the factors of a good professor included these items; mastery of the lesson subject in the “teaching skills section”, the way of expressing and conveying concepts and understanding the material in the “individual characteristics section”, respect for the student in the “communication skills section”, the exact start and end time of the class in the “law and regulation compliance area” And a comprehensive and detailed exam at the end of the academic semester in the “Evaluation Skills Section”. • According to the students, there was no significant difference between the 5 investigated areas. • There was no significant relationship between grade point average and any of the evaluation areas. • There was a significant difference between gender and the two areas of compliance with rules and regulations and teaching skills. |
16 | Myerholtz. L et al. 2019 [29] | USA | descriptive | Existing and ideal characteristics of faculty teaching evaluation systems from the perspective of key stakeholders: faculty, assistants, and residency program directors (PDs). | 126 samples were used from two qualitative approaches, confidential semi-structured telephone interviews and anonymous online survey of assistants. | • Assistants desired practical, real, and continuous faculty evaluation feedback to enhance professional development. • Assistants also noted that feedback should be based on a shared understanding of a faculty member’s skills. |
17 | Basirat. M et al. 2019 [30] | Iran | descriptive cross-sectional | Evaluation of the professor from the point of view of dental school students during and at the end of the academic semester | All students of the dental school of Gilan University of Medical Sciences in the academic year 94–95, who have been studying for at least two years (120 people), study tool; The evaluation questionnaire of the professors of Gilan University of Medical Sciences at two time points during and at the end of the semester | • There is no significant difference between the average evaluation score during the semester (3.41 ± 0.38) and at the end of the semester (3.3 ± 0.24) (p = 0.206). • A significant difference was observed in the average score during the semester and at the end of the academic semester of the evaluation of the professors in the items of the professor’s scientific mastery, the way of presenting the material, observing the sequence and priority of the material, the professor’s punctuality, and the ability to control and manage the class (p > 0.05). • There is no significant difference between the student’s academic year and the average evaluation score of the professors. |
18 | Stroud. L et al. 2020 [31] | Canada | descriptive | Investigating the effect of gender bias in the evaluation of the assistants from the professors’ teaching in 3 clinical departments | 1560 teaching assistants evaluated faculty in various clinical areas using the Teaching Effectiveness Evaluation (RATE) form at the end of each rotation. | • The effects of gender were different in the sectors. In internal medicine (38.5% female faculty members), no significant gender effect was observed. In surgery (16.2% female) and family medicine (53.0% female), male faculty members received significantly higher scores than female faculty members. In surgery, this was done by male residents who gave higher ratings to male faculty (4.46 vs. 4.26, p < 0.001). In family medicine, this was done because male faculty received ratings regardless of gender. |
19 | Arrona-Palacios. A et al. 2020 [32] | Mexico | descriptive | Investigating the effect of professors’ gender based on student evaluation of teaching | 103,833 faculty students (first to last semester) from a private university in Mexico evaluated 5,083 faculty members. Questionnaire (ECOA Encuesta de Opinion de Alumnos) was used. | • Regardless of gender, students evaluate the teaching performance of their professors based on specific criteria, however, in an overall evaluation, students preferred male professors over their female counterparts with a small difference. |
20 | Griffith. AL A et al. 2021 [33] | USA | descriptive and analytical study | Investigating the effect of professors’ gender on students’ grades | Samples of students related to 2640 professors of a large public university, examination of data on professors’ gender, their contract status, and students’ grades. | • Students whose classes were taught by a female instructor with job uncertainty status scored higher. • These higher scores indicate more lenient grading rather than better preparation for subsequent courses. • Students who attend classes with male instructors, there is no significant difference between the instructor’s rank in the grades received. |
21 | Patacsil F. F et al. 2022 [1] | Philippines | descriptive | Creating a model to predict the performance of faculty members using associative law based on the evaluation form available by PSU (Pangasinan State University) to evaluate faculty members. | Information of 15,548 students was collected from PSU online portal. Send questionnaires to each student’s portal so that they can evaluate the performance of their instructors. | “Teaching the subject/subject well”, “explains simply” can be used to evaluate the teacher’s performance. |