Sink, Swim, or Grab a Lifesaver: First Year Medical Student Perception of Academic Performance and Tutoring in an Anatomy Course
Authors: Stadem Paul , Ginsburg Alexander D , Hafferty Frederic , Lachman Nirusha , Pawlina Wojciech , Langley Natalie 
Published: November 2023

Perceived self‐efficacy influences how one approaches goals, tasks, and challenges, and has been shown to affect motivation and academic behaviors. The ability to accurately assess one's competency and limitations is also a critical skill for physicians. Research has shown that medical students can underestimate their perceived clinical skills compared to observer assessment, but limited research has addressed perceived knowledge specific to anatomy. This study compares student perception and faculty evaluation of academic competency in a gross anatomy course. Additionally, this study revisits whether daily audience response system (ARS) questions is a predictor of academic success, and the impact of near‐peer tutoring on student performance. Data from 51 first year medical students in a 7‐week gross anatomy course were evaluated. At the end of week 3 of the course, students with a cumulate ARS grade below the 70% pass requirement were contacted by faculty with individualized formative feedback on academic performance and presented with opportunities for improvement and formal tutoring. All students irrespective of performance were made aware of opportunities for tutoring. Six near‐peer teaching assistants tutored students who requested help. Mean ARS scores and laboratory practice practical grades were evaluated before and after the students received formative feedback. Students were placed into one of four groups based on two factors: (1) their perceived ability to succeed in the course, and (2) faculty perception of their potential for success. Students in groups 1 and 3 were identified by faculty members as potentially at risk, whereas groups 2 and 4 were viewed as low risk. From the students' perspective, those in groups 1 and 2 self‐identified as needing assistance, whereas groups 3 and 4 felt that they were not at risk of failing the course. Of the 12 students contacted by faculty, 6 (12% of the class) requested a tutor (group 1). Additionally, 11 (21%) students who were not contacted by faculty requested a tutor (group 2). Six (12%) students that were contacted by faculty did not request a tutor (group 3), while 28 (55%) were not contacted by faculty and did not request a tutor (group 4). The averages of daily ARS scores between groups after feedback was significantly greater in group 4 compared to groups 1 and 2 (68% vs 61% and 63%, p=0.04 and 0.04, respectively). In addition, the post faculty feedback practical average scores were significantly higher in group 4 compared to group 1 (67% vs 56%, p=0.04). These data show that in an environment that fosters acceptance of academic support, students are more receptive to receiving and reaching out for help from near‐peer tutors. Formative feedback from ARS scores continue to be a reliable indicator for tracking student performance. Improvement of student performance in final course evaluation may be a positive indicator of success from near‐peer tutoring.

Support or Funding Information

None