Document Type : Original Article


Education Development Center, Aja University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran


BACKGROUND: The ability to interact and communicate effectively is one of the factors affecting the
performance of faculty members, which is considered one of their basic competencies. The purpose
of this study was to identify the factors affecting on interaction of faculty member with student and
colleague, through the synthesis of literature.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The research method was qualitative with a meta‑synthesis approach.
Meta‑synthesis was performed with Sandelowski and Barroso method. After the research of databases
in the period 1995–2021, 259 studies were collected and finally 48 sources were selected and were
included in the analysis phase. Coding method was used to analyze the data.
RESULTS: Analyzing the findings of previous researchers and synthesizing the results, 155 codes,
18 subcategories, and 6 categories were identified and validated through kappa coefficient. The
categories included “emotional‑cognitive factor,” “sociocultural factor,” “communication factor,”
“professional factor,” “educational factors,” and “management factor.”
CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this study and the importance of faculty members’
interactions in medical universities, it is recommended that university officials and administrators
use the results of this study to provide a suitable platform for creating and strengthening these
interactions through holding workshops.


1. Haghighi M, Charabin M, Akbari A, Karim M. Assessing the
educational quality of professors and the factors influencing it.
A systematic study. J Crit Rev 2020;7:3419‑26.
2. Navabi N, Jahanian I, Haji Ahmadi M, Parvaneh M. Criteria for a
desirable teacher from the view point of students Babol University
of medical sciences. J Babol Univ Med Sci 2010;12 Supp 1:7‑13.
3. Hoy W, Miskel C. Educational Management: Theory, Research
and Practice. 9th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Education; 2012.
4. Nazarzadeh Zare M. Identifying barriers to international faculty
interactions: A qualitative approach. Educ Sci J Educ Sci Psychol
5. Kuh GD. The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual
and empirical foundations. N Dir Inst Res 2009;141:5‑21.
6. Creemers BP, Kyriakides L The Dynamics of Educational
Effectiveness. A Contribution to Policy, Practice and Theory in
Contemporary Schools. New York, NY & London, UK: Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group; 2008.
7. Alawamleh M, Al‑Twait LM, Al‑Saht GR. The effect of
online learning on communication between instructors and
students during COVID‑19 pandemic. Asian Educ Devt Stud
8. Moghadasi Z. Arasteh H, Navehebrahim A, Zeinabadi HR.
Interactions at Farhangian University: Contexts, strategies and
guidelines. Res Teac Educ 2020;3:113‑33.
9. Yueh‑Luen H, Chao‑Hsiang H, Gregory S C. Student‑faculty
interaction: Mediating between student engagement factors and
educational outcome gains. Int J Res Stud Educ 2015;4:43‑53.
10. Moon B. Do Universities have a Role in the Education and Training
of Teachers? An Analysis of Policy and Practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 2016.
11. Rampai N, Sopeerak S. The development model of knowledge
management via web based learning to enhance pre‑ service
teacher’s competence. Turk Online J Educ Technol 2011;10:249‑54.
12. Li L, Yang Sh. Exploring the influence of teacher‑student
interaction on university students’ self‑efficacy in the flipped
classroom. J Educ Learn 2021;10:84‑90.
13. Kim YK, Lundberg CA. A Structural model of the relationship
between student–faculty interaction and cognitive skills
development among college students. Res High Educ
14. Yaghoubi M, Salimi M, Karamali M, Ehsani‑Chimeh E. Factors
affecting the evaluation of teachers by systematic and Delphi
methods in the military university in Tehran. J Mil Med
15. Sattari S. Assessment of effective teaching, components based on
the students’ viewpoints. Res Curriculum Plan 2014;10:134‑46.
16. Ghaneirad MA, Khosrokhavar F. The mentalities of basic sciences
leading researchers about the scientific community in Iran. Iran
High Educ 2011;3:7‑34.
17. Sandelowski M, Barros J. Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative
Research. New York: Springer Publishing Company Inc; 2007.
18. Bench S, Day T. The user experience of critical care discharge:
A meta‑synthesis of qualitative research. Int J Nurs Stud
19. Suri H, Clarke D. Advancements in research synthesis methods:
From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Rev Educ Res
20. Bair CR. Meta‑Synthesis. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting
of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE);
1999 November 18‑20; San Antonio, Texas; 1999.
21. Strobel J, Barneveld A. When is PBL more effective? A metasynthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional
classrooms. Interdiscip J Probl Based Learn 2009;3:44-58.
22. Finfgeld DL. Met synthesis: The state of the art so far. Qual Health
Res 2003;13 (7):893‑904.
23. Livingston J. Defining and measuring faculty engagement:
Validation of the Faculty Engagement Survey. [Dissertation].
Azusa, California: Azusa Pacific University; 2011.
24. Lynn AN. Effect of Academic Content Academic Content
first‑year Seminars on student Engagement in the Institutional
Social System. [Dissertation]. Eisenhower Parkway: Illinois State
University; 2008.
25. Cox BE, Orehovec E. Faculty‑student interaction outside of
class: A typology from a residential college. Rev High Educ
26. Roastami‑Nasab H, Soltani A, Fazilat‑Pour M. Faculty‑student
interaction and its relationship with development of students’
cognitive skills. Stud Learn Instr 2020;11:1‑20.
27. Haghighi SH, Rokhafroz D, Sayadi N. The study of the interaction
effects between students and instructors from Shushtar nursing
students’ perspective. Future of Med Educ J 2015;5:20‑4.
28. Ghaneirad MA. The role of students – Teachers relationships in
formation of Academic social capital. Iran J Sociol 2006;7:3‑29.
29. Soltani A, Boostani D, Golestani S. Exploring the strategies of
faculty‑student interactions: A grounded theory study in Iranian
academic context. Learn Culture Soc Interact 2020;26;1‑13.
30. Nazarzadeh Zare M, Pourkarimi J, Abili Kh, Zakersalehi Gh.
Presenting a pattern for faculty members’ competency in the
international engagements: A phenomenological study. J Sci
Technol Policy 2016;8:25‑38.
31. Einarson MK, Clarkberg ME. Understanding Faculty
Out‑of‑Class Interaction with Undergraduate Students at a
Research University. Proceeding of the Annual Meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education in Kansas City,
MO; November 5, 2004.
32. KomarrajuM, Musulkin S, BhattacharyaG. Role of student‑faculty
interactions in developing college students’ academic self‑concept,
motivation, and achievement. J Coll Stud Dev 2010;51:332‑42.
33. Vianden J. Exploring college men’s perceptions about interacting
with faculty beyond the classroom. Coll Stud Aff J 2009;27:224‑41.
34. Choi BK, Kim MS. The student‑faculty interaction beyond the
formal curriculum in South Korea. High Educ Q 2020;00:1‑16.
[doi: 10.1111/hequ. 12261].
35. Ahmadi E, Osareh F, Heydari GH. Identification and analysis
the motivating and inhibiting factors of scientific collaboration
of faculty members in Local, National and International Levels
in Shahidchamran University and Jundishapur University of
Medical Sciences in Ahvaz. Health Inform Manag 2015;12:183‑93.
36. Alderman RV. Faculty and Student out‑of‑Classroom Interaction:
Student Perceptions of Quality of Interaction. [Dissertation].
College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University; 2008.
37. Boylan MB. The Impact of Learning Communities on Student
and Faculty Engagement: The Case for Linking College
Success and Basic Skills ENGLISH Courses at “A” Community
College. [Dissertation]: Glassboro, New Jersey: Rowan University;
38. Cejda BD, Hoover RE. Strategies for faculty‑student engagement:
How community college faculty engage Latino students. J Coll
Stud Retent Theory Pract 2010;12 (2):135‑53.
39. Cotton SR, Wilson B. Student‑faculty interactions: Dynamics and
determinants. High Educ 2006;54:487‑519.
40. Nazarzadeh Zare M, Pourkarimi J, Abili KH, Zaker Salehi GH. Competences of faculty members in the international interactions.
Rahyaft 2016;26:1‑19.
41. Neville KM. The Individual and Shared Meanings Students
Make of their Divers Interactions with African American Faculty:
A Phenomlogical Study. [Dissertation]: Boston, Massachusetts:
University of Massachusetts Boston; 2011.
42. Kim YK, Sax LJ. Student‑Faculty interaction in research
universities: Differences by student gender, race, social class, and
first‑generation status. Res High Educ 2009;50:437‑59.
43. Ingraham KC, Davidson SJ, Yonge O. Student‑faculty
relationships and its impact on academic outcomes. Nurse Educ
Today 2018;71:17‑21.
44. CoxBE, McIntoshKL, TerenziniPT, ReasonRD, Lutovsky QuayeBR.
Pedagogical signals of faculty approachability: Factors shaping
faculty–student interaction outside the classroom. Res High Educ
45. Cody BL. Fragmented exchanges: The impact of cultural
mistrust on student faculty interaction in a predominantly white
university. J Pan Afr 2017;11:3‑15.
46. Bagheri Heidari F. A study on the effective factors on the studetns
lectuers’ communication in some Iranian universities. Iran J Sociol
47. Navah A, Rezadoost K, Pour Tarkarouni M. Evaluation
of sociological factors affecting students’ interactions and
relationships with faculty members. Q J Res Plan High Educ
48. Nikoonezhad S, Zamani BE. Comparison between interaction and
social presence of students enrolled in actual and virtual programs
in terms of demographic factors and academic achievement.
J Appl Sociol 2014;25:119‑43.
49. Ross JM. The Student‑Faculty Relationship: An Investigation of
the Interactions between Students and Faculty [Dissertation]. Erie,
Pennsylvania: Gannon University; 2013.
50. Hoffman EM. Faculty and student relationships: Context matters.
Coll Teach 2014;62:13‑9.
51. Ghadami A, Salehi B, Sajadi Sh, Naji H. Sudents’ points of view
regarding effective factors in establishing communication between
students and faculty members. Iran J Med Educ 2007;7:149‑53.
52. Sagayadevan V, Jeyaraj S. The role of emotional engagement in
lecturer‑student interaction and the impact on academic outcomes
of student achievement and learning. J Scholarsh Teach Learn
53. Abdolahpour H, Soltani A, Esmi K. External interactions of
student‑teacher based on educational behaviors and professional
activities of faculty members. J Iran High Educ 2017;9:133‑52.
54. Zolfagharian M, Amin Beidolhti A, Jafari S. Structural
relationship of faculty‑student interaction and facultys active
teaching method with students competencies development
by mediating the knowledge acquisition. J Res Educ Syst
55. Sobhaninejad M, Ahmadi M. The comparison of teachers’ views
about theoretical and clinical curriculum of faculty of medical
sciences of Shahed University. J Med Educ Dev 2013;6:11‑23.
56. Fuentes MV, Alvarado AR, Berdan J, DeAngelo L. Mentorship
matters: Does early faculty contact lead to quality faculty
interaction? Res High Educ 2014;55:288‑307.
57. Aylwin C. Faculty and student interaction in an online
master’s course: Survey and content analysis. JMIR Med Educ
58. Denise MW, Summers L, Wright J. Faculty support and student
engagement in undergraduate engineering. Journal of Research
in Innovative 2020;13:83‑101. [doi: 10.1108/JRIT‑02‑2020‑0011].
59. Abedini M, Abassi A, Mortazavi F, Bijari B. The effective factors on
the communication between students and faculty members from
student’s prospective in Birjand University of Medical Sciences.
Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2013; 83:94‑8.
60. Moradi R, Zargham‑Boroujeni A, Soleymani MR. Factors related
to the international research collaboration in the health area:
A qualitative study. J Edu Health Promot 2020;9:267.
61. TolabiZ. The relationship between ethical literacy, student‑master
interaction & psychological empowerment. J Ethics Sci Technol
2017; 12:112‑20.
62. Henry DS, WessingerWD, Meena NK, Payakachat N, GardnerJM,
Rhee SW. Using a Facebook group to facilitate faculty‑student
interactions during preclinical medical education: A retrospective
survey analysis. BMC Med Educ 2020; 20:87.
63. Juarez DR. Creating an Environment of Success: Community
College Faculty Efforts to Engage in Quality Faculty Student
Interactions to Contribute to a First‑Generation Student’s
Perception of Belonging. [Dissertation]. Malibu, California:
Pepperdine University; 2017.
64. Mok DS. The Impact of Student‑Faculty Interaction on
Undergraduate International Students’ Academic
outcome. [Dissertation]. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California; 2013.
65. Hagenauer G, Volet SE. Teacher‑student relationship at
university: An important yet under‑researched field. Oxf Rev
Educ 2014; 40:370‑88.
66. Kerdpon D. Student Perceptions of Student Faculty Interactions
and Academic Achievement in Undergraduate Dental Students
at Prince of Songkla University. [Dissertation]. Songkla, Thailand:
Oklahoma State University; 2009.
67. Jarecke S. Student‑Faculty Interactions as Predictors of
Retention and Satisfaction among Generation Z College
Students [Dissertation]. South Dakota State, USA: South Dakota
State University; 2020.
68. Noorshahi N. Effective elements on professional development of
faculty members and ways to improve it. Q J Res Plan High Educ
2014; 20:95‑120.
69. Wilson D, Summers L, Wright J. Faculty support and student
engagement in undergraduate engineering. J Res Innov Teach
Learn 2020; 13:83‑101.
70. Gray JA, DiLoreto M. The effects of student engagement,
student satisfaction, and perceived learning in online learning
environments. Int J Educ Leadersh Prep 2016; 11:1‑20.
71. Araei M, MohammadiMehr M. The Mediating Role of
Organizational Learning in the Relationship between Knowledge
Management and Organizational Innovation (Case Study: Faculty
Members of a Military University).J Mil Med 2020; 22:373-83.
72. Mohammadimehr M, Mirmoghtadaie Z. Exploring the
components of student support system in blended learning for
Iranian Universities of Medical Sciences: A thematic analysis.
J Educ Health Promot 2021; 10:130.
73. Mohammadimehr M. Investigating the Status of Entrepreneurial
University Indicators in the University of Military Medical
Sciences in Corona Crisis. J Mil Med 2021; 23:349-357.