BackgroundEfforts are made to enhance in-class learner engagement because it stimulates and enhances learning. However, it is not easy to quantify learner engagement. This study aimed to develop and validate an observation tool for instructor and student behaviors to determine and compare in-class learner engagement levels in four different class types delivered by the same instructor.MethodsObserver pairs observed instructor and student behaviors during lectures in large class (LLC, n=2) with third-year medical students, lectures in small class (LSC, n=6) and case-based teaching sessions (CBT, n=4) with fifth-year students, and problem-based learning (PBL) sessions (~7 hours) with second-year students. The observation tool was a revised form of STROBE, an instrument for recording behaviors of an instructor and four randomly selected students as snapshots for 5-min cycles. Instructor and student behaviors were scored 1–5 on this tool named ‘in-class engagement measure (IEM)’. The IEM scores were parallel to the degree of behavior's contribution to active student engagement, so higher scores were associated with more in-class learner engagement. Additionally, the number of questions asked by the instructor and students were recorded. A total of 203 5-min observations were performed (LLC 20, LSC 85, CBT 50, and PBL 48).ResultsInterobserver agreement on instructor and student behaviors was 93.7% (κ=0.87) and 80.6% (κ=0.71), respectively. Higher median IEM scores were found in student-centered and problem-oriented methods such as CBT and PBL. A moderate correlation was found between instructor and student behaviors (r=0.689).ConclusionsThis study provides some evidence for validity of the IEM scores as a measure of student engagement in different class types.

Background: Learning environment influences students' professional formation and patientcentered attitudes and behaviors. Objective: The purpose of this study is to investigate how hidden curriculum of learning environment and the previous experience with chronically ill patients affect patient-centeredness perceptions of medical students. Design: We followed 144 students and determined their opinions on 'ideal patient-centered practice and learning environment' via patient-centeredness questionnaire (PCQ) just before (third year) and at the end (sixth year) of clinical training years of medical school. At the end of each clinical training year (fourth, fifth, and sixth years), we determined experiences of the students about 'patient-centeredness of the learning environment' using a relevant survey called communication, curriculum, and culture (C3) instrument. We also compared PCQ and C3 instrument scores of the participants who had chronically ill patient in their families/ friends and who do not. Results: C3 scores worsened over the years, namely, students faced increasing number of examples against patient centeredness. Final PCQ scores were worse than initial ones. C3 and PCQ scores of the students who had previous experience with chronically ill patients were not different from the scores of the remaining students. Conclusion: Medical students, even those who have a chronically ill patient in their families or friends, lose their idealism about patient centeredness to some degree possibly due to hidden curriculum of the medical school. ARTICLE HISTORY

No abstract