Open comments from medical students in the teaching evaluation.

Authors

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/edumed.704401
Keywords: teacher evaluation, medical education, student feedback, learning environment

Abstract

An in-depth qualitative analysis was conducted of open-ended comments provided by medical students at a highly selective university in Mexico regarding faculty performance during the 2023–2024 academic year. Using a descriptive and interpretive design, a total of 18,562 comments were validated and coded (15,300 positive and 3,262 negative) across six dimensions: teaching approaches, teacher–student interaction, professional commitment, curricular alignment, assessment practices, and the learning environment. Findings indicate that students place the highest value on teaching that effectively integrates theoretical knowledge with clinical practice, is supported by visual resources, and is delivered with clarity. Students also value faculty members’ professional commitment, as reflected in punctuality, empathetic engagement, effective communication, and the creation of a safe environment that fosters active participation (psychological safety). In contrast, negative perceptions are associated with repetitive and unengaging teaching, absenteeism, limited formative feedback, punitive assessment practices, poor adaptation to virtual learning environments, hostile attitudes, and gender bias. In conclusion, effective medical teaching extends beyond disciplinary expertise; it requires well-developed pedagogical competence, strong communication skills, and robust socio-emotional competencies. These elements should be aligned with international frameworks on psychological safety and best practices in feedback to ensure more humane and high-quality medical education.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Metrics
Views/Downloads
  • Abstract
    10
  • pdf (Español (España))
    7
  • pdf
    7
  • xml (Español (España))
    0

References

1. Pacheco-Cámara ML, Ibarra-Bocardo I, Iñiguez-Galindo ME, Lee-García H, Sánchez-Sánchez CV. La evaluación del desempeño docente en la educación superior. Rev Digit Univ. 2018, 19(6), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.22201/codeic.16076079e.2018.v19n6.a2

2. Hattie J. Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge, 2009. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332

3. Blömeke S, Kaiser G. Understanding the development of teachers’ professional competencies as a continuum. Teach Teach Educ. 2017, 64, 275-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.010

4. Molloy E, Boud D, Henderson M. Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2020, 25(2), 527-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09918-2

5. Carless D, Boud D. The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assess Eval High Educ. 2018, 43(8), 1315-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

6. Edmondson AC, Lei Z. Psychological safety: history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2014, 1, 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305

7. Marsh HW. Students’ evaluations of university teaching: dim ensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. In: Perry RP, Smart JC, editors. The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007. p. 319-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5742-3_9

8. Spooren P, Brockx B, Mortelmans D. On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: the state of the art. Rev Educ Res. 2013, 83(4), 598-642. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313496870

9. Martínez Chávez AC, Bautista-Díaz ML, Hickman Rodríguez H. Cuestionario de opinión de prácticas docentes por estudiantes: su análisis factorial-confirmatorio. RECIE Rev Electrón Cient Investig Educ. 2022, 6:e1248. https://doi.org/10.33010/recie.v6i0.1248

10. Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2014. https://books.google.es/books/about/Research_Design.html?hl=es&id=335ZDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

11. Tavakol M, Sandars J. Quantitative and qualitative methods in medical education research. Med Teach. 2014, 36(10), 838-48. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.915297

12. Constantinou C, Wijnen-Meijer M. Teacher evaluation in medical education: a systematic review of its impact on teaching quality and student learning. BMC Med Educ. 2022, 22(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03148-6

13. Ortiz R, Abrera B Jr. Faculty Evaluation in Philippine Higher Education Institutions: A Review. Liceo J Higher Educ Res. 2017, 12(1), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.7828/ljher.v12i1.963

14. Saleh AM, Al-Tawil NG, Shabila NP, Al-Hadithi TS. Standardization of the student’s evaluation of teaching (SET) questionnaire in an Iraqi medical school. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013, 7(5), 883-7. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2013/4952.2965

15. Hamui-Sutton L, Enríquez-López P, Hernández-Becerril C, Lavalle-Montalvo C, Vilar-Puig P. Evaluación del desempeño docente en el posgrado de medicina: un enfoque de competencias. Educ Med. 2018, 19(1), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edumed.2016.11.003

16. Nishat AS, Abhay SN, Venkata RT, Poonam RN. Standardization of the student’s evaluation of teaching (SET) questionnaire in an Iraqi medical school. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013, 7(5), 883-7. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2013/4952.2965

17. Bagherian Far M, Nasr Esfahani AR, Ahanchian MR. Designing a Model for Evaluating the Performance of Faculty Members Based on the Components of the Hidden Curriculum. J New Thoughts Educ. 2020, 16(2), 29-74. https://doi.org/10.22051/jontoe.2020.30512.2980

18. Sawatsky AP, Ratelle JT, Beckman TJ. Anesthesiology, Interprofessional Teamwork, and the Hidden Curriculum: A Qualitative Study. Anesthesiology. 2019, 131(1), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000002728

19. Taylor SJ, Bogdan R. Introduction to qualitative research methods. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1987. https://nwimsr.mespune.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Introduction-to-Qualitative-Research-Methods-PDFDrive-.pdf

20. Carmona-Zamudio I, Hamui-Sutton L. Evaluación del desempeño docente en medicina: una revisión narrativa. Rev Esp Educ Med. 2023, 4(2), 202. https://doi.org/10.6018/edumed.556721

21. Rivas-Martínez G, Ortiz L, Bañuelos-Gómez F. Diseño y validación de un instrumento para la evaluación del desempeño docente en la educación superior. Rev Iberoam Educ Super. 2026, 17(48), 61-81. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.20072872e.2026.48.1856

22. Bleakley A, Bligh J. Students’ learning on the wards: a social learning theory perspective. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008, 13(1), 89-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-006-9028-0

23. Steinert Y, editor. Faculty development in the health professions. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014.

24. Hafferty FW. Beyond curriculum reform: confronting the hidden curriculum. Acad Med. 1998, 73(4), 403-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199804000-00013

25. Lempp H, Seale C. The hidden curriculum in undergraduate medical education: qualitative study of medical students' perceptions of teaching. BMJ. 2004, 329(7469), 770-3. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7469.770

26. Babaria P, Abedin S, Nunez-Smith M. The hidden curriculum of gender: a qualitative study of medical students' experiences with faculty. Acad Med. 2009, 84(7), 859-66. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181a8130c

27. Day C. Pasión por enseñar: la identidad de los profesores y su integridad. Madrid: Narcea, 2011. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/libro?codigo=325695

28. Sooki Z, Ghotbi N, Kian-Ersi F, Rezasoltani P, Sharifi S. Evaluation of teaching performance of clinical teachers from the perspective of medical students using the SETQ tool. BMC Med Educ. 2024, 24, 187. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05161-w

29. Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur. Manual de evaluación del desempeño docente. La Paz: UABCS, 2012. https://cgfp.uabc.mx/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/evaluacion_docencia_lic.pdf

30. Young JE, Williamson MI, Egan TG. Students’ reflections on the hidden curriculum in medical education: a focusing of the lenses. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016, 21(1), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9611-3

31. Chalco-Barrientos G. Evaluación del desempeño docente en medicina: un reto pendiente. Rev Med Panacea. 2023, 12(3), 133-4. https://doi.org/10.35626/panacea.12.3.133

32. Pinilla AE, Barrera MP, Soto HA, Parra MO, Rojas E, Granados LA. Evaluación del desempeño docente en la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Rev Fac Med. 2004, 52(2), 98-114.

33. Pastore S. Performance-based teacher evaluation: A systematic review. Front Educ. 2023, 8, 1217167. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1217167

Published
07-05-2026
How to Cite
Gatica Lara, F., Vives Varela, T., Rojas Caballero, L. G., Navarro Escalera, K. A., Ramírez Arrieta, M. A., & Sepúlveda Vildósola, A. C. (2026). Open comments from medical students in the teaching evaluation. Spanish Journal of Medical Education, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.6018/edumed.704401
Issue
Vol. 7 No. 3 (2026): Spanish Journal of Medical Education
Section
Artículos

Copyright (c) 2026 Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The works published in this magazine are subject to the following terms:

1. The Publications Service of the University of Murcia (the publisher) preserves the economic rights (copyright) of the published works and favors and allows them to be reused under the use license indicated in point 2.

2. The works are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 license. 

3. Self-archiving conditions. Authors are allowed and encouraged to disseminate electronically the pre-print versions (version before being evaluated and sent to the journal) and / or post-print (version evaluated and accepted for publication) of their works before publication , since it favors its circulation and earlier diffusion and with it a possible increase in its citation and reach among the academic community.

Most read articles by the same author(s)