Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 6 (2014) 19

http://www.pharmacyteaching.com
Research
Classroom attendance: Factors and perceptions of students and
faculty in US schools of pharmacy
Adam M. Persky, PhDa,*, Jennifer L. Kirwin, PharmD, BCPSb,
Canio J. Marasco Jr., PhDc, D. Byron May, PharmD, BCPSd,
Monica L. Skomo, BS, PharmD, BCACPe, Kathleen B. Kennedy, PharmDf
a
Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, NC
b
Department of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy, Northeastern University, Boston, MA
c
DYouville College School of Pharmacy, Buffalo, NY
d
Department of Pharmacy Practice, Campbell University College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences, Buies Creek, NC
e
Duquesne University Mylan School of Pharmacy, Pittsburgh, PA
f
College of Pharmacy, Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA

Abstract

Objectives: To determine which factors most inuence pharmacy students decision to skip class from the perspective of
students and faculty in schools of pharmacy in the United States. In addition, a secondary goal was to assess perceptions about
the importance of classroom attendance.
Methods: Using self-explicated methodology, a survey was developed that assessed course and instructor attributes and
factors, attitudes, and perceptions surrounding student decisions to skip class. The survey was administered electronically to
students and faculty at six pharmacy schools. Studentfaculty comparisons were made to identify areas of disagreement.
Results: The top course-related attributes for why students skip class were access to digital recordings of class, access to
internet-streamed class, and the provision of detailed handouts with class time offering little new information. The top
instructor-related attributes for why students skip class were instructors who predominately lecture, who are dull and boring,
and who lack organization. Students also were asked to identify circumstances in which they have actually skipped class and
69% of students marked they missed class to get other schoolwork done, and over 50% marked because they had an exam that
day. When asked about the importance of attendance, students and faculty felt attendance was part of professionalism and
impacted their grade. Other factors related to attendance are reported.
Conclusions: In general, there was agreement between students and faculty on why students skip class, but not on the need for
attendance policies.
r 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Student attendance; Active learning; Technology; Students; Faculty

Introduction

Faculty tend to believe that student attendance at

scheduled class is an integral part of higher education.
* Corresponding author: Adam M. Persky, PhD, Eshelman However, anecdotal reports by faculty and administrators
School of Pharmacy, 108 A Beard Hall, CB 7569, 301 Pharmacy suggest that there are too many empty seats in class-
Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27599. rooms. This anecdotal evidence is supported by objective
E-mail: [email protected] data that describe student attendance patterns. In one
1877-1297/14/$ see front matter r 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2013.09.014
2 A.M. Persky et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 6 (2014) 19

survey, students reported being absent an average of 3.17 evaluated the impact of offering audio recordings, in addition
times per course.1 In another study, 52% of respondents to traditional in-class pharmacotherapeutics lectures, found
admitted to missing at least one class or tutorial session in that 71% of students reported listening to the recordings;
the last seven days.2 Much of this research has been most while taking notes from the material. Overall, 90% of
completed at the same time that colleges and universities respondents agreed that availability of recordings did not
are devoting more resources to distance learning: archiving affect class attendance, though objective measures of attend-
digital content and utilizing technologies that enable asyn- ance were not reported.17 In a follow-up project, student self-
chronous teaching and learning. These changes may provide reported utilization of audio recordings were not associated
additional reasons why students may choose to skip class. with improved examination scores.18 Since use of internet-
Student attendance is inuenced by many factors includ- based content and course management systems have become
ing student and faculty attitudes about learning, assessment a mainstream part of higher education, a meta-analysis was
methods, technology, lifestyle-related pressures (e.g., com- conducted examining the relationship between attendance
peting work and family obligations, the need to travel to and and grades. The researchers found no notable correlation
from campus, extra-curricular activities) and the health of suggesting that widespread use of technology has not altered
the student-teacher relationship.1,35 Whether frequent the value of classroom attendance.6
attendance is causally associated with better grades is a While there are equivocal results on the impact of class
subject of debate; there is evidence that coming to class is at attendance on academic performance, there is little infor-
least modestly correlated with success on course assess- mation describing the opinions of pharmacy school faculty
ments.1,3,68 These ndings are intuitive as frequent class about their students pattern of classroom attendance or if
attendance provides students greater interaction with course students or faculty perceive attendance is important in the
material and distributes the interaction over time as opposed age of podcasting and asynchronous learning. As such, this
to all at once or cramming, which has been linked to study sought to determine which factors most inuence
better exam performance but not necessarily retention of pharmacy students decision to skip class from the perspec-
material. 6 tive of students and faculty and to assess perceptions about
Besides the potential negative impact on course perform- the importance of classroom attendance. The goal is to
ance, poor attendance is a problem in programs that train characterize perceptions or misconceptions in order to
health professionals, including pharmacists, because class- inform development of policy or instructional techniques
room attendance may also encourage professional social- that would better engage students in learning.
ization. This socialization may be a function of encouraging
stronger studentfaculty relationships and studentstudent Methods
relationships. In turn, stronger relationships and better
interactions can promote the development of professional Study procedures were approved by the IRB at each of
skills, behaviors, attitudes, and valueseach integral to a the participating institutions: Campbell University College
successful pharmacist.9,10 The research suggests that fac- of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Duquesne University
ultystudent interactions are key determinants of profes- Mylan School of Pharmacy, DYouville College School of
sionalism and the developing of critical thinking and Pharmacy, Northeastern University School of Pharmacy,
metacognitive skills.11 University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy,
As previously mentioned, the past decade has seen and College of Pharmacy at Xavier University of Louisiana.
widespread adoption of various technologies that allow Students were eligible to participate in the study if they were
students to access digital handouts, archives of recorded enrolled in the PharmD program at one of the participating
class lectures, or wholesale online coursework in addition institutions. Students who were under 18 years of age or
to, or sometimes in lieu of, traditional classes.1214 Several who were not full-time students were excluded. This study
papers have characterized the relationship between was conducted between January and March 2012.
expanded access to learning materials and attendance in Two surveys were developed, one for eligible students
scheduled classes and have not demonstrated a negative and a parallel survey given to all full-time, pharmacy faculty
impact on attendance as students made use of additional members at participating institutions. Part time and adjunct
materials.13,15,16 Another paper demonstrated a positive faculty were excluded as they often are clinical preceptors
correlation between the availability of online notes and with little classroom experience. The survey had three
class attendance and performance on exams.14 sections. Section one included Likert-type questions regard-
In a 2009 paper describing the impact of offering digitally ing attitudes about attendance. Section two was a self-
recorded les in a pharmacotherapeutics course, researchers explicated conjoint analysis (SE) on course and instructor
concluded that students valued the recordings and found factors that impact a students decision not to attend or skip
them helpful to their studying. Overall, 82% of students class. The last section asked for demographic information.
reported listening to the audio les in preparation for exams. The SE is an analytic approach popular among market-
However over the same period, faculty noted an estimated ing researchers to determine customer preferences.19,20 It
2575% decrease in class attendance.12 Another project that has been increasingly used to answer questions about
 A.M. Persky et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 6 (2014) 19 3

healthcare preferences and resource allocation.21 This Two of the six schools have an attendance policy: one
approach provides decision-making information that can program required 80% attendance and the second program
guide organizational strategies for developing policy as well required 100% attendance.
as instructional design. Our SE approach asked respondents Across all participating institutions, 3417 students and
to rate: (1) how inuential each factor was in their decision 340 faculty members were invited to take the survey. A total
to skip class on a scale of 010 and (2) how important each of 1162 students (34%) started the survey and 458 students
attribute was among all the other attributes. There were two completed the survey; sixteen students who started the
to six factors within each attribute. To determine impor- survey were excluded from participation because they were
tance, respondents allocated 100 points across the attributes. either under 18 years old or were not full-time students.
Overall preferences were obtained by multiplying the factor Student demographic results can be found in Table 3. A total
importance number by the attribute level. To dene the of 153 faculty members (45%) started the survey and 94
most desired or least desired condition, a utility score is then completed the survey. Faculty demographics can be found in
calculated for each factor as the product of the individual Table 4. All schools were combined for analysis to better
factor score and the attribute score. reect generalizability because absenteeism is complex and
The SE development occurred in two steps. In step one, data may be lost looking at individual institutions.
a list of attributes and related factors were identied by Due to the high partial response rate, a sensitivity
reviewing the published literature related to student attend- analysis was performed on the full data set (consisting of
ance in pharmacy, medical, and general higher-education partial and completed surveys) and for the completed
databases. This yielded a list of 11 course attributes with responses only. There were no statistical differences in
35 related factors and nine instructor attributes with 29 primary objectives; therefore results from the full data set
related factors. In the second step, a student focus group are presented.
(n 8) from one institution was asked to review the
factors and recommend revisions. The nal SE included 12 Self-explicated analysis
course attributes including 38 factors (Table 1) and 10
instructor attributes including 31 factors (Table 2). An ele- In order to determine potential relationships between
ctronic link to the survey was sent to students and faculty attributes (or independence of attributes), data were com-
at the participating schools of pharmacy. The survey was bined for faculty and students to perform a correlation
administered online using Qualtrics Software (https:// analysis between attributes within each theme (i.e., course
www.qualtrics.com). and instructor attributes.). Some attributes were signicantly
Data were combined for faculty and students to perform correlatedthere were 45 possible instructor attribute
a correlation analysis between factors within each theme combinations and 26 were signicant; 66 course attributes
(i.e., course factors and instructor factors.). When appro- combinations, 44 were signicantbut the relationship for
priate, comparisons were made between results from the these correlations were weak (r2 o 0.30) (data not
students and faculty surveys to identify potential areas of shown). Two attributes under instructor attributes, age and
disconnect. sex, and age and classication, were signicantly correlated
with a high r2, 0.62 and 0.37, respectively, and one under
Statistics course attributes, core and credit hours (r2 0.46) (data not
shown). The correlation between age and sex, and age and
Analysis of the survey data was done using Statistica classication could possibly be explained by composition of
Software (Version 10, StatSoft, Tulsa, OK). Spearman-rank faculty within schools of pharmacy. Newer faculty at
correlations were used between attributes. A t-test was used schools of pharmacy tend to be younger females, and thus
to compare student to faculty rankings with the self- may have lower academic ranks; the older, male faculty,
explicated analysis. Likert scales were converted to a who have been in academics for numerous years, often
relative numerical scale and a MannWhitney test was used obtain higher academic rank. The correlation between core
to compare student to faculty data. Signicance was set at course and credit hours may be related to core courses
p o 0.05. having higher credit hours and electives having lower
credit hours.
Results The relative ranking of course attributes was similar
when students and faculty responses were compared
The participating institutions were diverse in demo- (Table 1). The utility scores (i.e., product of the individual
graphic characteristics according to the Carnegie classica- factor score and the attribute score) for attributes were
tion with one public university and ve private universities; signicantly higher for faculty than students for number of
one very high research, two high research, one large instructors and course material. The utility score for course
masters, and one baccalaureate; two large, three medium, timing was higher for students than for faculty. When
and one small size; and ve established pharmacy programs examining the factors within the attributes that contribute
(415 years) and one newer pharmacy program (o5 years). the most to students skipping class, the relative importance
4 A.M. Persky et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 6 (2014) 19

Table 1
Course attributes, factors, and their respective scores and rankings

Overall attribute
Average utility score score

Students Faculty
Attribute Attribute denition Factor Students RI Faculty RI (%) (%)
Access to Student access to class Recordings released after class 1.64 1 1.93 1 19 23.4
material Course is streamed live 1.18 2 1.76 2
No recordings available 0.37 15 0.61 10
Time of course When the course occurs End of a long day 0.92 5 0.58 12 16.3 9.1a
Early in the morning 0.89 7 0.56 13
Two or more hours before or after 0.76 9 0.40 15
another class
Only class of the day 0.92 4 0.68 8
Course material Out of class materials relation to in- Follows textbook closely 0.74 10 1.10 4 12.1 16.2b
class material Handouts complete, class offers little 1.00 3 1.52 3
new information
Handouts incomplete, class offers 0.33 17 0.62 10
some new information
Course Level of difculty Very challenging 0.17 26 0.21 26 9.3 8.8
difculty Appropriately challenging 0.25 21 0.28 22
Not very challenging 0.90 6 0.88 6
Organization Level of organization Highly organized 0.14 30 0.19 30 8.2 7.4
Somewhat organized 0.38 14 0.36 18
Not very organized 0.79 8 0.71 7
Course format Type of learning environment Lecture, minimal active learning 0.65 12 0.91 5 7.4 9.5
Lecture, some active learning 0.28 19 0.44 14
Active learning, minimal lecture 0.21 24 0.36 18
Content type Type of content discussed Foundational science (e.g., medicinal 0.22 22 0.39 17 7.2 7.1
chemistry)
Pharmacy practice 0.17 27 0.26 24
Social/Administrative science 0.65 11 0.61 11
Student How the student is doing in the Doing well 0.57 13 0.20 27 6.2 3.0
performance course Doing poorly 0.15 29 0.16 35
Unknown 0.16 28 0.18 32
Length of class Length of class in a day Three hours or more 0.35 16 0.17 34 6.0 3.9
Two hours 0.21 23 0.17 33
One hour or less 0.33 18 0.28 21
Credit hours Number of course credits 4 credits or more 0.05 35 0.09 37 3.1 3.1
3 0.06 34 0.16 36
2 0.12 31 0.27 23
1 credit or less 0.27 20 0.19 30
Type Core or elective Core 0.07 33 0.19 28 2.2 3.4
Elective 0.19 25 0.24 25
Number of Number of instructors More than 3 0.03 38 0.39 16 0.96 5.0a
instructors 3 0.03 37 0.29 20
2 0.04 36 0.19 31
1 0.08 32 0.19 29

RI relative importance.
a
p o 0.001.
b
p o 0.005.

for the top three factors were the same between faculty and This data suggest that if students have access to recordings
students: (1) course recordings are released after class, (2) of course after the class is completed, the class is streamed
courses are streamed live, and (3) handouts that are live and be accessed anywhere, or if all of the relevant,
complete and class offer little new information. These three testable notes are available, there is increased likelihood that
factors relate to access and completeness of the material. students may choose to be absent from class.
 A.M. Persky et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 6 (2014) 19 5

Table 2
Instructor attributes, factors, and their respective scores and rankings

Overall attribute
Average utility score score

Students Faculty
Attribute Attribute denition Factor Students RI Faculty RI (%) (%)
Instructional Type of instructional
Predominant lecture 1.9 1 2.0 1 21.0 20.2
methods delivery Problem/case based 0.33 12 0.41 14
Discussion 0.35 11 0.45 10
Small group 0.44 9 0.45 11
Style Instructors classroom Exciting (e.g., uses humor, personal experiences, 0.15 21 0.19 24 16.8 13.7
personality is approachable)
Neutral 0.44 8 0.58 8
Dull (e.g., not approachable, doesnt seem to 1.67 2 1.35 2
care)
Organization How organized the Almost always 0.14 24 0.26 21 12.5 12.8
instructor is Sometimes 0.40 10 0.53 9
Rarely 1.23 3 1.23 3
Environment Classroom climate set by Positive (e.g., treats students with respect; sets 0.10 26 0.18 25 11.8 11.2
instructor high expectations)
Neutral 0.29 15 0.45 12
Negative (e.g., uses sarcasm, talks down to 1.17 4 1.10 4
students)
Communication Communication skills Well (e.g., appropriately paced) 0.14 23 0.14 29 11.1 9.6
Moderate 0.32 14 0.32 18
Poor (e.g., talks too fast, too low, accent) 1.09 5 0.94 5
Expertise Instructors expertise High 0.09 27 0.15 28 9.6 9.4
Intermediate 0.23 18 0.37 16
Low 0.95 6 0.92 6
Assessment Exam question difculty Challenging 0.17 19 0.20 23 8.6 9.2
Appropriate 0.17 20 0.30 20
Easy 0.80 7 0.89 7
Classication Appointment or rank Faculty 0.08 29 0.14 30 5.8 6.6
Guest 0.25 17 0.32 17
Resident 0.15 22 0.30 19
TA 0.27 16 0.43 13
Peer 0.33 13 0.40 15
Age Relative instructor age Appears further from my age 0.11 25 0.17 26 1.8 3.2a
Appears closer to my age 0.09 28 0.23 22
Sex Instructors sex Male 0.05 30 0.10 31 0.86 2.1a
Female 0.05 31 0.16 27

RI relative importance.
a
p o 0.001.

The relative ranking of instructor attributes was similar Likert questions

between students and faculty (Table 2). The utility scores for
attributes were signicantly higher for faculty than students for Students and faculty alike agreed that class attendance is
age and sex. When examining the factors within the attributes part of professionalism (Table 5). Both faculty and students
that contribute the most to students skipping class, the relative were neutral in their opinion that their school had an attendance
importance for the top three factors were the same between problem, but faculty had a signicantly higher score (p o
faculty and students: (1) instructors who predominately lecture 0.05). Faculty and students both agreed that the more classes
and have little active learning, (2) instructors who are dull and students attend, the higher their grade will be. Faculty agreed
boring, and (3) instructors who are rarely organized. These with the statement faculty care about whether students attend
three factors suggest that the lack of student engagement, both class more so than students (p o 0.05).
in terms of active learning and creating a lively classroom, and Overall, 58% of students said some classes tracked
instructors who are perceived to be disorganized will increase attendance, 24% said all classes track attendance, and
the likelihood that students will choose to be absent from class. 18% said attendance was not tracked. When asked if their
6 A.M. Persky et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 6 (2014) 19

Table 3 attend certain classes more regularly than other classes

Student demographics (89% vs. 50%, p o 0.001). When faculty were asked if a
Total respondents (response rate) 1162 (34%) students course load inuences their attendance over half
Complete 458 (52%) agreed, 32% of faculty were unsure and the
Partial 704 remainder disagreed. When faculty were asked if they
Excluded 16 perceived students with higher grade point averages (GPAs)
Year attended more classes more regularly, 70% said yes, 25%
Pre-pharmacy year 1 26 (6%) were unsure, and the remaining fraction said no. How-
Pre-pharmacy year 2 17 (4%)
ever, there was no signicant differences detected when
P1 89 (20%)
examining students self-reported number of hours of class
P2 80 (18%)
P3 117 (27%) skipped within the last complete semester with respect to
P4 112 (25%) their self-reported GPA category (i.e., students with higher
Female 318 (72%) GPAs did not skip more or less courses than lower
Age in years (mean and standard deviation) 26 (5) performing students).
Marital status
Married 68 (15%) Other analyses
Separated 0
Divorced 6 (1%) Students reported missing a median of six hours
Widow 0 (interquartile range [IQR] 312 hours) during their last
Never married 367 (83%) complete semester; faculty, however, estimated that students
Living with partner 55 (15%) missed a signicantly higher amount with a median of ten
Children at home under 18 27 (6%) hours (IQR 5.520 hours) during the last complete semester
Highest degree (p o 0.05). The self-reported number of hours of class
None 228 (52%) skipped during the last complete semester was analyzed
BA 181 (41%)
comparing various demographic parameters. There were no
MA 13 (3%)
Doctor 0
differences with regard to sex, marital status, the presence
Other 20 (5%) of dependent children under 18 years old at home, highest
Do you work during the academic year? 319 (73%) degree earned, whether students worked, grade point
Hours work during the school year (hours, 11 (10) average, enrollment in a joint degree program, or how
mean and standard deviation) students paid for their education.
Travel time to school (minutes, mean 20 (17) Students were asked to check reasons they missed class
and standard deviation) during their last complete semester; these reasons differ
Primary means to pay for school from the SE analysis as they either related to non-modiable
Self 15 (3%) circumstances (e.g., weather) or items not amenable to SE
Family 94 (21%)
analysis because they were infrequent or single occasions
Loan 311 (70%)
Grant 4 (1%)
(e.g., studying for an exam). Overall, 69% of students
Scholarship 15 (3%) marked they have missed class because they needed to get
Other 4 (1%) schoolwork done or study for an exam (Table 6).
Current GPA
43.5 199 (45%) Comparison between programs with and without
33.5 170 (38%) attendance policies
2.53.0 64 (14%)
o2.5 6 (1%) A cursory analysis was performed to compare schools
Unknown 3 (1%) that have and do not have attendance policies on actual
In a joint degree program 40 (9%) behavior. Schools with attendance policies had students that
GPA grade point averages (GPAs) reported less overall time skipped (median ve vs. seven
hours, p o 0.001), a smaller percentage of students
reporting missing class to studying (58% vs. 74%, p o
school had a stated policy on classroom attendance in the 0.001), recovering from a stressful school-related event
student handbook, 48% of students were unsure, 44% said (38% vs. 50%, p o 0.05), and having an examination the
yes and the rest said no. When faculty members were asked day before (11% vs. 19%, p o 0.05).
the same question, 40% said yes, 32% said they were
unsure, and the rest (28%) said no. If participants did not
Discussion
answer yes, they were asked if the school should have an
attendance policy. Signicantly more faculty than students Students learn discipline-related content and develop the
felt a policy was needed (55 vs. 15%, p o 0.001, Chi- foundation for professional attitudes and values through,
squared). More faculty than students also felt that students among other activities, interactions with preceptors,
 A.M. Persky et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 6 (2014) 19 7

Table 4 miss class. Although previous literature within pharmacy

Faculty demographics has not investigated faculty members view on classroom
Total respondents (response rate) 153 (45%) attendance, results from our student survey are generally
Complete responses 94 similar to previously published research, including some
Partial responses 49 faculty perceptions outside of pharmacy.24 A 2005 survey
Administrator 24 (16%) of rst (P1) and second (P2) professional year pharmacy
Classroom teaching responsibility 121 (98%) students found that the variable most frequently cited as a
Years in academics (years, mean, 14 (10) motivator for class attendance was handouts not inclusive
and standard deviation)
and faculty present new information in class and faculty
Female 53 (58%)
apply information to solving real problems. Factors that
Age in years (mean and standard deviation) 45 (13)
Degree motivated students not to attend class included faculty read
BA 2 (2%) their notes, class was before or after a test, personal
MA 5 (5%) logistics (meaning trafc, weather, and other personal
PhD 27 (30%) commitments and emergencies), and having a break of
PharmD 51 (56%) two more hours before or after class.9
PharmD/PhD 6 (7%) In another survey of P1 through P3 students in another
Other doctorate 0 Doctor of Pharmacy program, average travel time to and
Discipline taught from campus and the degree to which students were
Adminstrative onlyno teaching 5 (5%)
responsible for their own educational expenses were corre-
Medicinal chemistry 6 (7%)
lated to absenteeism.10 This current investigation does not
Pharmaceutics 6 (7%)
Pharmacokinetics 1 (1%) support the linkage between travel time or educational
Pharmacology 10 (11%) expenses and absenteeism. Within this previous study,
Clinical science (e.g., pharmacotherapy) 50 (55%) students reported being more likely to attend a class when
Social administrative 13 (14%) attendance impacted their grade; they perceived the course
Position as difcult; they wanted to take their own notes, the
Assistant Professor 33 (23%) instructor provided material in addition to what was readily
Associate Professor 26 (18%) available, they were interested in the content, the instructor
Professor 13 (9%) emphasized what they needed to know, faculty noticed or
Clinical Assistant Professor 27 (19%)
cared that they attended, and when they felt obligated to go.
Clinical Associate Professor 16 (11%)
This study supports some of these ndings. Three
Clinical Professor 4 (3%)
Research Faculty 1 (1%) papers4,9,10 noted that competing exams and other course
Chair 6 (4%) demands inuenced student attendance. The current study
Assistant Dean 3 (2%) supports this with a large fraction of students stating they
Associate Dean 4 (3%) have missed class to study for other courses and examina-
Dean 3 (2%) tions. The one limitation of previous research is the inability
Other 8 (6%) to rank order all the factors that impact students to skip
class. This current study provided an opportunity to do that
by using the SE methodology.
instructors, and faculty. This is one important aspect of Use of the SE methodology represents a novel approach
professional socialization or, the transformation that occurs to determining student preferences. However, our analysis
to make professionals out of students.22 Through profes- was limited by a suboptimal response rate overall with a
sional socialization, a student learns aspects of the culture of notable partial response rate. This is likely a result of many
their chosen path, including knowledge, skills, values, and factors including the survey process itself as the SE
beliefs central to the discipline. Positive interactions help to methodology and administration process results in a
positively socialize students into the profession just as lengthy, complex survey tool. Investigators at each institu-
negative interactions can impact them in an undesirable tion sent a total of three email invitations to participate, but
way. It stands to follow, students who attend class and have the timing of the project meant that invitations were sent
the opportunity to interact with faculty who use techniques near the end of a busy semester. Analyses indicate that
that engage students to participate in their learning will response rates and demographics of participating students
develop social skills, professionalism, and self-discipline were similar at each of the institutions, offering a generally
and thereby positively enhance this process of professional balanced sample of institutions. It is also possible that
socialization.12,22 In this project, and in previously reported students who are inclined to participate and complete
work, students agreed that classroom attendance was educational research surveys may not have attitudes and
associated with professionalism.23 preferences representative of the entire pharmacy student
Pharmacy students and faculty are in general agreement body. In addition, this project provides limited data on
about factors and attributes that affect students decision to students who are enrolled in pharmacy school at a distance
8 A.M. Persky et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 6 (2014) 19

Table 5 from classes on occasion because of conicts in work or

Summary of Likert questions (median)* time commitments. To the extent possible, faculty and
Student Faculty course administrators can impact these factors by cooperat-
(n 458) (n 92) ing across courses and departments to manage students
workload. Communication to reduce overlapping exams or
Class attendance is part of 4.0 4.3 (p o 0.05)
professionalism
project timelines may be simple ways to minimize student
There is an attendance problem 3.0 3.4 absenteeism.
at my school
The more classes a student 3.8 4.0 Conclusions
attends the higher their grade
Faculty care whether students 3.6 4.1 (p o 0.05) The top three factors within course-related attributes and
attend class instructor-related attributes accounted for approximately
40% of the factors inuencing students decisions to skip
* 5 strongly agree, 3 neutral, and 1 strongly disagree. class. For the course, these factors included the following:
(1) course recordings are released after class, (2) courses are
campuses (only one institution) and as not all of our streamed live, and (3) handouts that are complete and class
participating institutions offered the same in-class and offers little new information. For the instructor factors these
online services to students (e.g., not all schools archive were as follows: (1) instructors who predominately lecture
course recordings) some student responders may have had and have little active learning, (2) instructors who are dull
less exposure than others. Finally, lower responses rates and boring, and (3) instructors who are rarely organized. In
have been noted for electronic surveys compared to paper general, there was agreement between students and faculty
methods.25,26 Sub-analyses comparing schools with and on why students skip class, but not on the need for
without attendance policies was performed on actual attendance policies. Faculty and students did believe that
behaviors. The limitation of this analysis is only two of attendance was part of professionalism and was associated
the six schools have a stated attendance policy and these with academic performance. This information can be used
two schools had different policies; one program had a cutoff for faculty development and discussions on the value of
of 80% attendance and the other mandatory. Within the policies on classroom attendance.
analysis it is difcult to conclude if these are meaningful
differences (i.e., relate to better professionalism or greater Acknowledgments
learning performance) although they are statistically
signicant. The authors would like to thank their dean mentor, Dr.
The ndings from this project are best applied by Kathleen Kennedy, the American Association of Colleges
designing in-class and online educational environments that of Pharmacy Academic Leadership Fellows Program, stu-
maximize a students intrinsic motivation to attend and dents and faculty who completed the survey, and the Odum
participate in class and minimize the extrinsic factors (e.g., Institute for Social Science Research at the University of
attribute of the course or instructors) that discourage North Carolina.
attendance. If faculty believe that physical attendance in
class substantially inuences this development, then train-
ing and faculty development programs should support and Table 6
expand the use of techniques and styles that keep students Missed class reasons
motivated and active in the classroom. While the primary % Of
attendance motivator for students is internal (for example, Reason students
their commitment to their studies or intrinsic work ethic),
I needed to get school work done or study for an 69.0
educators can inuence many of the external reasons for
exam
attendance1,2 by the way they teach and administer their I had an exam that day 52.9
courses. Educators should not presume that students with You were recovering from a stressful 46.4
certain demographic characteristics are more or less likely school-related event (e.g., exam)
to skip class1,6,10,23 but instead should practice and increase I had an exam the next day 44.6
their use of active learning and strive to be approachable, There was bad weather even though 34.2
engaging, and organized in the classroom. Faculty who school was open
value student attendance should strongly consider the I was attending a local or national meeting 30.3
effects of releasing audio or video recordings of lectures I was attending a student organization meeting 20.4
and work to ensure that students see value in the classroom I was scheduled to work 17.2
You participated or were participating in a social 16.3
experience. Even with taking into account important factors
event (e.g., Halloween, sporting event)
likes access to materials, student engagement, and charac- I had an exam the day before 16.3
teristics of quality instructors, student still may be absent
 A.M. Persky et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 6 (2014) 19 9

References 14. Grabe M, Christopherson K. Optional student use of online

lecture resources: resource preferences, performance and
1. Friedman P, Rodriguez F, McComb J. Why students do and do lecture attendance. J Comput Assist Learn. 2008;24(1):
not attend classes: myths and realities. Coll Teach. 2001;49(4): 110.
124133. 15. Grabe M. Voluntary use of online lecture notes: correlates of
2. Longhurst R. Why arent they here? Student absenteeism in a note use and note use as an alternative to class attendance.
further education college. J Further High Educ. 1999;23(1):6180. Comput Educ. 2005;44(4):409421.
3. Massingham P, Herrington T. Does attendance matter? An 16. Vandehey MA, Marsh CM, Diekhoff GM. Providing students
examination of student attitudes, participation, performance, with instructors notes: problems with reading, studying and
and attendance. J Univ Teach Learn Pract. 2006;3(2):82103. attendance. Teach Psych. 2005;32(1):4952.
4. Bati AH, Mandiracioglu A, Orgun F, Govsa F. Why do 17. DiVall M, Horwedel T. Student experience and attitudes about
students miss lectures? A study of lecture attendance amongst class recordings as MP3s (CRaM) pilot program. Am J Pharm
students of health science. Nurse Educ Today. 2013;33(6): Educ. 2007;71(3):Article 60.
596601. 18. DiVall M, Douglass M, Skirvin J. The impact of lecture
5. Kelly GE. Lecture attendance rates at university and related podcast availability on student examination scores. Am J
factors. J Further High Educ. 2012;36(1):1740. Pharm Educ. 2008;72(3):Article 72.
6. Crede M, Roch SG, Kieszczynka UM. Class attendance in 19. Akaah IP. Predictive performance of self-explicated, traditional
college: a meta-analytic review of the relationship of class conjoint, and hybrid conjoint models under alternative data
attendance with grades and student characteristics. Rev Educ collection modes. Acad Market Sci J. 1991;19(4):309314.
Res. 2010;80:272295. 20. Dubas KM, Mummalaneni V. Self-explicated and full prole
7. Gump SE. The cost of cutting class: attendance as a predictor conjoint methods for designing customer focused courses.
of student success. Coll Teach. 2005;53(1):2126. Market Educ Rev. 1997 Spring97;7(1):3548.
8. Halpern N. The impact of attendance and student characteristics
21. Wen KY, Gustafson DH, Hawkins RP, et al. Developing and
onacademic achievement: ndings from an undergraduate business
validating a model to predict the success of an IHCS
management module. J Further High Educ. 2007;31(4):335349.
implementation: the readiness for implementation model. J
9. Fjortoft N. Students motivations for class attendance. Am J
Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17(6):707713.
Pharm Educ. 2005;69(1):Article 15.
22. Hammer D, Berger B, Beardsley R, Easton M. Student
10. Westrick SC, Helms KL, McDonough SK, Breland ML.
professionalism. Am J Pharm Educ. 2003;67(3):Article 96.
Factors inuencing pharmacy students attendance decisions
in large lectures. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73(5):Article 83. 23. Hidayat L, Vansal S, Kim E, Sullivan M, Salbu R. Pharmacy
11. Halpern D. Teaching for critical thinking: helping college student absenteeism and academic performance. Am J Pharm
students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical Educ. 2012;76(1):Article 8.
Thinker. New Dir Teach Learn. 1999;80(1999):6974. 24. Henry RK, Gibson-Howell J. A comparison of millennial
12. Elsasser G, Hoie E, Destache C, Monahan M. Availability of dental hygiene student and faculty classroom expectations.
internet download lecture audio les on class attendance and J Dent Hyg. 2012;85(3):229239.
examination performance. Int J Instruct Techn Dist Learn. 25. Braithwaite D, Emery J, De Lusignan S, Sutton S. Using the
2009;6(2):1924. internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid
13. Grabe M, Christopherson K. Evaluating the advantages and alternative? Fam Pract. 2003;20(5):545551.
disadvantages of providing lecture notes: the role of internet 26. Leece P, Bhandari M, Sprague S, et al. Internet versus mailed
technology as a delivery system and research tool. Internet questionnaires: a controlled comparison. J Med Internet Res.
High Educ. 2005;8(4):291298. 2004;6(4):e39.