Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 May 27;25(1):784.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07300-w.

Bias in student evaluations of teaching in undergraduate medical education: a qualitative study from a medical school in Northern China

Yuanheng Li #  1 , Chao Sun #  1 , Yazhou Wang #  1 , Haoyu Chi  1 , Hanye Tang  1 , Mingxue Ma  1 , Lifeng Wei  1 , Linjun Zhong  1 , Jida Li  1 , Kun Wei  1 , Zhuowa Sha  2 , Chao Fan  3 , Gangyu Zhang  2 , Peihang Sun  4 , Mingli Jiao  5
Affiliations

Bias in student evaluations of teaching in undergraduate medical education: a qualitative study from a medical school in Northern China

Yuanheng Li et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in medical education as a tool to improve teaching quality. However, biases in SET can undermine their effectiveness. While numerous studies have explored bias factors in SET within higher education, few have specifically investigated these factors among medical students in China. This study aims to systematically explore the multidimensional causes of bias in Chinese undergraduate medical students' teaching evaluations.

Methods: A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with medical students from a medical university in northern China. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity in gender, academic year, and major. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis to identify themes and subthemes related to biases in teaching evaluations.

Results: The analysis revealed several key themes contributing to biases in SET among medical students: (1) Teacher-Student Interaction: High personal affinity of teachers led to positive bias, while strict classroom management and poor teacher-student relationships resulted in negative bias. (2) Aspects Related to Medical Students: Course attributes and personal interest influenced evaluations, with elective courses and low-interest subjects leading to arbitrary bias. Group influences, such as peer effects and conformity, also contributed to bias. (3) Evaluation System Factors: Doubts about the anonymity of the evaluation system and lack of timely feedback led to self-protective scoring behaviors and arbitrary bias. The presence of informal agreements between teachers and students introduced moral hazards that further skewed evaluations.

Conclusions: Biases in medical students' teaching evaluations are multifaceted and can primarily be attributed to teacher-student interpersonal relationships, student perceptions, and systemic issues within the evaluation process. To enhance the objectivity and effectiveness of SET, it is essential to address these biases by reshaping students' understanding of evaluations, improving teacher-student communication, and establishing a digital evaluation system that ensures anonymity and timely feedback.

Keywords: Bias; Student evaluations of teaching (SET); Teaching evaluation system improvement; Undergraduate medical education.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Informed consent was obtained from all 22 participants, who were medical students (all participants were older than 16). The consent was gathered in the form of individual agreements prior to their participation in the qualitative interviews. They were explicitly informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty or adverse consequences. The informed consent form detailed the purpose and methods of data collection and ensured that all information provided would be kept confidential. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Harbin Medical University (approval number: 20240305), which is affiliated with Harbin Medical University. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Clinical trial number: not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. RCN M. From content-centred to learning-centred approaches: shifting educational paradigm in higher education. J Educational Adm History. 2017;49(1):72–86.
    1. Steyn CD, Sambo C. Eliciting student feedback for course development: the application of a qualitative course evaluation tool among business research students. Assess Evaluation High Educ. 2018;44(1):11–24.
    1. Uttl B, White CA, Gonzalez DW. Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Stud Educational Evaluation. 2017;54:22–42.
    1. Cox SR, RMK, Lowery CM. The student evaluation of teaching: let’s be Honest – Who is telling the truth?? Mark Educ Rev. 2022;32(1):82–93.
    1. Uijtdehaage S, O’Neal C. A curious case of the Phantom professor: mindless teaching evaluations by medical students. Med Educ. 2015;49(9):928–32. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources