La Student evaluation of master's degrees and teacher training specializations It has become an essential barometer for understanding what is working and what is not in the initial training of teachers for Secondary Education, Baccalaureate, Vocational training and Language Teaching. In recent years, studies gathering the opinions of both students and teachers have multiplied, and the emerging picture is complex: there is clear progress, but also widespread discontent among those taking these programs.
In the specific case of Master's Degree in Secondary Education Teaching (MES), which replaced the former Pedagogical Adaptation Course (CAP), the general perception of a large part of the students is that it is a mandatory requirement that delays their access to competitive examinations and to labor marketMany arrive convinced that their degree already adequately qualifies them to teach, and they do not always recognize the added value of psychopedagogical training, as shown by analyses on mistakes in choosing a master's degreeFrom the perspective of university faculty, the view is quite different: they believe that the master's degree provides an essential foundation and that it should continue to be strengthened and improved, not by lowering its standards.
Context and evolution of the Master's Degree in Teacher Training
The implementation of the MES is framed within the adaptation to the European Higher Education Area and in the commitment to a more robust teacher training model than the old CAP (Certificate of Pedagogical Aptitude). Since it began in 2009, numerous academic works have analyzed its strengths and weaknesses. Professional associations and research groups, such as those coordinated by Benarroch or ValdĆ©s and BolĆvar, agree that the master's program represented a step forward by giving official and regulated status to the pedagogical training of secondary school teachers, but they emphasize that it remains insufficient if it is not complemented by coordinated work in schools.
The specialized literature highlights that the MES has attempted to structure itself around generic modules, specific modules, practicum and Master's Thesis (TFM)striving to balance theory and practice, the program has, in practice, been haphazardly implemented, with difficulties in adequately integrating disciplinary training with pedagogy, and with variability among universities, leading to problems of coordination and internal coherence. Authors such as Vilches and Gil have emphasized the need to carefully select the faculty who teach the more pedagogically focused modules, as their role is crucial for students to perceive real-world application in what they learn.
On the other hand, international comparison, especially with countries like FinlandThis shows that in high-performing educational contexts, a longer and more selective pathway is required: a three-year undergraduate degree plus a two-year master's degree, with a strong emphasis on educational research and supervised practice. In these systems, it is understood that teachers not only need specific techniques, but also a comprehensive and critical view of educational processes, something that is being developed in Spain, but which students do not always perceive as such.
In this scenario, the vice-rectorates for quality at universities have begun to systematize the Gathering student opinions on master's degrees and specializationsnot only to comply with evaluation agencies like ANECA, but to introduce real improvements in curricula and methodologies.
Objectives of student assessment studies
The most comprehensive empirical studies on the MES have aimed to go beyond standard satisfaction surveys. The idea has been delve deeper into specific aspects that influence the future professional performance of secondary school teachers and to understand to what extent the master's program is addressing them effectively.
Among the recurring objectives of these investigations, several very clear axes stand out. First, they seek to to compare the opinions of teachers and students Regarding the master's program's contributions to psychopedagogical training: what each group understands by "good training" and whether they feel it is being achieved. Secondly, it is important to analyze the university faculty's view of the students' prior training and their attitude towards the master's program: motivation, genuine interest in learning pedagogy, and willingness to get involved.
Another key objective is to know the expectations, interests and reasons that lead the students to enroll in the MES. Most acknowledge that they do so because it is a requirement for to take competitive examsBut this is not the only reason: there are also those who see the master's degree as an opportunity to learn about the reality of the centers, reinforce their vocation or explore options beyond regulated teaching.
Finally, these studies aim to identify strengths and weaknesses The data obtained will be used to guide improvement actions. This involves not only preparing diagnoses, but also justifying changes in the master's program planning, adjusting the workload of practical training, rethinking the content of the generic module, or reviewing how final master's theses and practicums are supervised.
Methodology and design of the questionnaires
To rigorously collect student and teacher feedback on the MES, the following methods have been used, primarily: structured questionnaires based on Likert-type scalesThe usual practice has been to design two parallel instruments: one aimed at the teaching staff who teach in the master's program and another for the enrolled students, each with 20 items organized into subscales.
These questionnaires have been subjected to a expert validation process in didactics and teacher training at various Spanish universities. In the first phase, the initial items are sent to university and secondary school teachers involved in master's programs in different specializations, asking them to evaluate the clarity, relevance, and sufficiency of each statement. Based on their feedback, wording is revised, redundancies are eliminated, and nuances are incorporated. A second round is then conducted with another group of experts, repeating the process until a more refined final version is achieved.
In their final form, questionnaires typically group items into three main sections. The first focuses on the Contributions of the Ministry of Higher Education to the training of future secondary school teachers (subscale A), encompassing everything from the acquisition of teaching skills to knowledge of how schools operate and the characteristics of secondary school students. The second (subscale B) includes the evaluation of the teaching staff responsible for teaching From the students' perspective: attention received, clarity of explanations, relevance of the content to professional practice, or support in the Master's Thesis.
The third block (subscale C) addresses the Teachers' opinions about students and their interestsThis includes aspects such as their motivation upon entering the master's program, their shortcomings in oral and written communication, their willingness to study teaching methodologies, and their preference for more practical experience and less theory. In this case, the items are often phrased negatively, so the scores are subsequently reversed to facilitate interpretation and comparison of averages.
Questionnaires are normally administered online, via a link sent by emailguaranteeing the anonymity of the responses. The statistical analysis is carried out with programs such as SPSS, calculating means, standard deviations, Pearson correlations and the internal consistency of each subscale through Cronbach's alpha, which usually offers acceptable values āā(above 0,70) in the blocks related to the contributions of the master's program and the evaluation of the teaching staff.
Sample profile: who values āāthe master's degree
In more detailed investigations, the sample combines university faculty from the Ministry of Higher Education and students from different specialtiesFor example, a study conducted at a university in southern Spain involved 33 teachers (19 men and 13 women) and 40 students (17 men and 23 women), allowing for a comparison of perceptions from both groups with a certain level of representativeness.
Regarding age, the teaching staff is concentrated mainly among the 41 and 50 yearsThis is followed by the 31-40 age bracket. This implies that a large majority of those teaching the master's program have a well-established academic career and prior experience in university or school teaching. The students, for their part, are mostly between 20 and 30 years old, that is, recent graduates or those with few years of work experience, although there is also a smaller percentage of students over 30 who are retraining or changing career paths.
Another relevant aspect is the branch of knowledge The teaching staff is grouped into three categories: sciences, humanities and social sciences, and psychopedagogical subjects. Approximately 40% belong to the sciences, a third to humanities and social sciences, and a third to areas of pedagogy and didactics. The student body maintains a similar distribution, with a slight majority in science specializations and a smaller presence of educational guidance. Furthermore, the sample typically includes students from the dual vocational training, which enriches the analysis.
This cross-referencing of profiles allows us to analyze whether there are differences in perception based on gender, age, or disciplinary areaAlthough studies show that, in general, there are no statistically significant differences by sex, interesting nuances are observed depending on the branch of knowledge: for example, science students and teachers tend to rate the contributions of the master's program lower and be more critical of the theoretical load, while those from guidance counseling value both the program and the teaching staff more highly.
Results on the contributions of the master's program to teacher training
One of the most striking findings is the gap between the perception of teachers and that of students Regarding the master's degree's contribution to teacher training, when analyzing the scores of the "Contributions" subscale, the teaching staff placed almost all items above the scale's average (3 out of 5), while the students, with few exceptions, fell below it.
From the teachers' perspective, the MES provides future teachers sufficient knowledge to face teachingThis helps them understand the characteristics of secondary school students and provides them with a fairly clear view of the internal workings of educational centers. Items such as "the information provided about how the centers operate" or "feeling more prepared to face teaching than at the beginning of the master's program" usually receive scores close to 4.
However, the students show a A much colder assessmentIn many cases, they only recognize as clearly useful the information regarding how the centers function and the dynamics of the practicum; they perceive the other contributions less clearly. One particularly illustrative item is the one that asks whether the overall approach of the master's program seems adequate: here the difference in scores between teachers and students can exceed one point out of five, which demonstrates a clash of perceptions that is difficult to ignore.
This distance is partly explained by the initial expectations of the studentsMany students enter the Master's program by comparing it to the old CAP (Certificate of Pedagogical Aptitude), which had a lighter workload and less academic rigor. The leap to an official Master's degree, with its final project, extensive internships, and denser theoretical modules, is sometimes perceived as an imposed obstacle rather than a professional development opportunity. At the same time, Master's program instructors tend to be quite optimistic in their assessment of what they offer, confident that the curriculum adequately meets training needs.
By cross-referencing the ratings with reliability analyses and correlations, it is observed that those who score high on the Contributions from the Ministry of Higher Education also tend to give teachers a better rating.This suggests that a significant part of the student's experience depends on their initial motivation and how they perceive the overall coherence of the program.
Teachers' perception of the master's and secondary school programs
Another key factor in students' evaluation of master's degrees and specializations is the opinion they have of those who teach themHere again, the differences between the opinions of teachers and students are noteworthy. Teachers generally believe they give students adequate attention, convey the content appropriately, and that their contributions help improve future teaching practices.
For their part, the students show more reservations, especially regarding aspects such as personalized attention and the connection between theory and practiceThe highest-rated item is usually the one referring to the support received for completing the Master's Thesis, where students do acknowledge significant guidance. However, in areas such as the clarity of the content explanations or its suitability to the actual needs of the classroom, the scores tend to be near or below the average.
An interesting aspect is the presence in the master's program of active secondary school teachers who collaborates in teaching certain modules. Students often particularly appreciate these teachers because they provide concrete examples, classroom strategies, and practical experiences that feel closer to the reality of secondary schools. In fact, many students believe that the contributions of secondary school teachers have a direct impact on their preparation, while only some of the more theoretical sessions are perceived as fully connected to the day-to-day practice of teaching.
Studies also point to possible causes for this misalignment of perceptions. On the one hand, university faculty may assume that master's students have a high degree of autonomy and academic maturityThis reduces the individual attention they deem necessary. Furthermore, the limited institutional recognition of MES credits for the academic careers of many teachers could affect the time and energy they can dedicate to personalized follow-up.
Teachers' opinions about students: motivation and shortcomings
The third major line of analysis focuses on How do university professors view the students of the Ministry of Higher Education? in terms of motivation, interests, and prior preparation. This is perhaps the area where opinions are most divided. When questions are asked about whether students arrive at the master's program with deficiencies in oral and written communication, whether they enroll only out of obligation to prepare for competitive exams, or whether they prefer more practical experience and less theory, most faculty members tend to agree.
After reversing the scores to facilitate reading, it is observed that the teaching staff places their assessments of the "Students" factor in averages below 2 points out of 5This indicates a generally critical opinion. They believe that many students lack a foundation in teaching methodology, that they arrive with a simplistic view of education (focused on simply "explaining the subject matter"), and that they show some resistance to taking on the theoretical burden necessary to understand educational complexity.
However, the students give themselves a much more positive self-assessment in this same section. They tend to think they are well prepared in their specialtyThey choose the master's program because they want to be teachers, and their demand for more practical experience doesn't imply a lack of interest in theory, but rather a need to see how what they've learned is applied in real-world situations. In fact, the scores are very high on the items related to the importance they place on secondary school teachers as a source of practical knowledge.
The most marked differences appear in statements such as āstudents want more practical work and less theory.ā While the faculty rate this very low (after the scale was reversed), assuming that students do indeed tend to reject the theoretical component, the students themselves rate this item very highly, reinforcing their desire for a more practical approach. more practical training, but not necessarily less rigorousHere, two almost opposing views on what it means to "learn to teach" are mixed together.
It is also worth noting that the subscale related to opinions about students shows, in some studies, lower Cronbach's alpha valuesThis indicates a greater dispersion of responses and less homogeneity. This suggests that there is no single criterion, either among the teaching staff or the students themselves, when assessing motivation and attitude, which further complicates the interpretation of the results.
The role of the practicum, the Master's thesis, and active methodologies
If there's one aspect that almost everyone agrees on, it's the importance of the practical in secondary schools. Direct contact with classrooms, with real students, and with practicing teaching teams is perceived as one of the most valuable elements of the MES. Studies such as those by Valle and Manso insist that developing the practicum in "best practice" schools and strengthening the relationship between university, administration, and schools is key to raising the overall quality of the master's program.
Students usually show a special enthusiasm for this internship period, which they would like to dedicate more time and with greater integration with the other modules. They often feel that the theory they receive in general or specific subjects is not always clearly articulated with what they observe in secondary schools, which generates a certain sense of disconnection. For their part, university faculty recognize the relevance of the practicum, but face regulatory and organizational limitations that make it difficult to extend its duration or restructure it more flexibly.
The Master's Thesis (TFM) appears in most studies as a training device with high potentialWhen the focus is on practical and innovative projects connected to the realities of the schools, students tend to value it positively. Research such as that of RodrĆguez Torres highlights that the Master's Thesis can be a privileged space for developing skills, provided there is good mentoring and an approach that goes beyond the mere formal requirement.
In parallel, the impact of active methodologies such as the role-playing in science teacher trainingIn specific training programs for pre-service teachers (PFI) in Biology and Geology or Physics and Chemistry, the introduction of role-playing activities has been very well received. Qualitative analysis of their feedback shows that they perceive clear educational advantages: these activities encourage student engagement, allow for the development of communicative and social skills, and help simulate complex classroom situations (conflicts, scientific debates, decision-making, etc.).
At the same time, the PFI recognizes the difficulty and requirement of designing these activities wellThey require time, creativity, detailed planning, and the ability to manage unpredictable group dynamics. They also point to limitations related to the curriculum and the pressure to "cover the material." Even so, the overall assessment of these types of proposals is very positive, and they are considered an interesting way to better connect initial teacher training with the realities of science education.
Taken together, practicum, TFM and active methodologies are configured as key elements to improve students' perception of the master's programWhere these elements are integrated coherently and given a balanced weight compared to more expository sessions, student satisfaction tends to increase.
A closer look at the cross-evaluations reveals a consistent pattern: when the student perceives that the MES offers practical tools, contextualized experiences and real supportThe overall program score rises, and students' opinions of the faculty also improve. Conversely, when the master's program is experienced as a succession of poorly connected theoretical subjects, dissatisfaction increases, along with the feeling of being faced with a bureaucratic formality rather than professional training.
The reviewed research makes it clear that simply collecting standard satisfaction surveys is not enough; further research is needed. to truly listen to and share the voices of students and teachersTo rigorously analyze their points of convergence and divergence, and to make bold decisions regarding curriculum redesign, teacher selection and renewal, and strengthening ties with secondary schools. Only in this way can students' assessments of master's degrees and teacher training specializations begin to align with those of the teaching profession, and, more importantly, only in this way will the teaching profession have a training foundation commensurate with the social responsibility it entails.