Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

The Impact of Lecture Attendance and Other Variables on How Medical Students Evaluate Faculty in a Preclinical Program

Martin, Stanley I. MD; Way, David P. MEd; Verbeck, Nicole MPH; Nagel, Rollin PhD; Davis, John A. PhD, MD; Vandre, Dale D. PhD

doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318294e99a
Research Reports

Purpose: High-quality audiovisual recording technology enables medical students to listen to didactic lectures without actually attending them. The authors wondered whether in-person attendance affects how students evaluate lecturers.

Method: This is a retrospective review of faculty evaluations completed by first- and second-year medical students at the Ohio State University College of Medicine during 2009–2010. Lecture-capture technology was used to record all lectures. Attendance at lectures was optional; however, all students were required to complete lecturer evaluation forms. Students rated overall instruction using a five-option response scale. They also reported their attendance. The authors used analysis of variance to compare the lecturer ratings of attendees versus nonattendees. The authors included additional independent variables—year of student, student grade/rank in class, and lecturer degree—in the analysis.

Results: The authors analyzed 12,092 evaluations of 220 lecturers received from 358 students. The average number of evaluations per lecturer was 55. Seventy-four percent (n = 8,968 evaluations) of students attended the lectures they evaluated, whereas 26% (n = 3,124 evaluations) viewed them online. Mean lecturer ratings from attendees was 3.85 compared with 3.80 by nonattendees (P ≤ .05; effect size: 0.055). Student’s class grade and year, plus lecturer degree, also affected students’ evaluations of lecturers (effect sizes: 0.055–0.3).

Conclusions: Students’ attendance at lectures, year, and class grade, as well as lecturer degree, affect students’ evaluation of lecturers. This finding has ramifications on how student evaluations should be collected, interpreted, and used in promotion and tenure decisions in this evolving medical education environment.

Dr. Martin is assistant professor of clinical internal medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, and associate director, Integrated Pathway Curriculum, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio.

Mr. Way is senior research associate, Center for Education and Scholarship, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio.

Ms. Verbeck is curriculum coordinator, Med-1 Integrated Pathway, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio.

Dr. Nagel is professor of clinical internal medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, and education resource specialist, Center for Education and Scholarship, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio.

Dr. Davis is assistant professor of clinical internal medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, and assistant dean for student life, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio.

Dr. Vandre is associate professor, Department of Physiology and Cell Biology, and director, Integrated Pathway Curriculum, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio.

Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Martin, Division of Infectious Diseases, Ohio State University Medical Center, N1135 Doan Hall, 410 W. 10th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210; telephone: (614) 293-5666; fax: (614) 293-4556; e-mail: stanley.martin@osumc.edu.

© 2013 by the Association of American Medical Colleges