Name
Student Learning Through In-House Recorded Lectures vs. Third-Party
Resources in the Musculoskeletal & Dermatology M-1 module
Date & Time
Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 10:38 AM - 10:53 AM
Location Name
Lamar A
Speakers
Authors
Rajasekaran Koteeswaran, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Macon & Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA
Eva Forgacs, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Macon & Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA
Uzoma S. Ikonne, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Macon & Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA
Miasha O'Neal, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Macon & Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA
Presentation Topic(s)
E-Learning
Description
Introduction:
Utilizing third-party resources (TPR) such as online platforms, and review
courses has seen a growing trend in medical education. However, the role of
in-house recorded lectures provided by faculty remains vital for aligning
with institutional curricula. This study examines the impact of in-house
recorded lectures compared to third-party resources on student learning
outcomes and preferences in the 3-week musculoskeletal system and dermatology
module (M1-preclerkship 2023-24 curriculum).
Methods:
In-house recorded lectures (n=11) were uploaded on the Panopto platform for
first-year medical students (n=150) and medical master’s students (n= 30).
Data analytics on viewership and self-reported TPR use from module
evaluations were collected. Exam performance was analyzed by comparing top
(>95%) and low (<68%) performers with their lecture viewership data.
Results:
The average exam score was 82.7% (SD=9.84), with 17 students scoring 95% or
above and 16 students failing (<68%). Top performers had a mean lecture
completion rate of 73.18%, while low performers showed a mean completion rate
of 27.69%, with 17 students showing no viewership. Data from the end of the
module evaluation revealed 110 respondents (61.1%) spending either majority
or slightly more time on TPR while only 31 respondents (17.2 %) spent either
majority or slightly more time on in-house recorded lectures. Further
statistical analysis will be conducted to evaluate the relationship between
in-house lecture utilization, TPR usage, and pathology-specific assessment
performance.
Conclusion:
Both in-house recorded lectures and third-party resources offer unique
advantages in medical education. While TPR provides clearer, high-yield
information, in-house lectures ensure more in-depth information and better
curriculum alignment and exam preparation. In conclusion, preliminary data
indicate that students who consistently used in-house lectures performed
better. A balanced approach, utilizing both resources, may enhance student
learning and exam preparation.
Utilizing third-party resources (TPR) such as online platforms, and review
courses has seen a growing trend in medical education. However, the role of
in-house recorded lectures provided by faculty remains vital for aligning
with institutional curricula. This study examines the impact of in-house
recorded lectures compared to third-party resources on student learning
outcomes and preferences in the 3-week musculoskeletal system and dermatology
module (M1-preclerkship 2023-24 curriculum).
Methods:
In-house recorded lectures (n=11) were uploaded on the Panopto platform for
first-year medical students (n=150) and medical master’s students (n= 30).
Data analytics on viewership and self-reported TPR use from module
evaluations were collected. Exam performance was analyzed by comparing top
(>95%) and low (<68%) performers with their lecture viewership data.
Results:
The average exam score was 82.7% (SD=9.84), with 17 students scoring 95% or
above and 16 students failing (<68%). Top performers had a mean lecture
completion rate of 73.18%, while low performers showed a mean completion rate
of 27.69%, with 17 students showing no viewership. Data from the end of the
module evaluation revealed 110 respondents (61.1%) spending either majority
or slightly more time on TPR while only 31 respondents (17.2 %) spent either
majority or slightly more time on in-house recorded lectures. Further
statistical analysis will be conducted to evaluate the relationship between
in-house lecture utilization, TPR usage, and pathology-specific assessment
performance.
Conclusion:
Both in-house recorded lectures and third-party resources offer unique
advantages in medical education. While TPR provides clearer, high-yield
information, in-house lectures ensure more in-depth information and better
curriculum alignment and exam preparation. In conclusion, preliminary data
indicate that students who consistently used in-house lectures performed
better. A balanced approach, utilizing both resources, may enhance student
learning and exam preparation.