Student engagement with in-person teaching remains a key challenge in undergraduate bioscience education, particularly in large-cohort and commuter-dominated contexts. This study evaluates a dual-mechanism framework encompassing macro-level structural determinants influencing attendance and micro-level affective determinants influencing in-class spatial behaviour. Survey data were collected from 891 undergraduate bioscience students across three London universities. Attendance barriers were assessed using ranked-choice responses across 15 pedagogic factors and analysed using weighted priority scores. Seating behaviour was captured through self-reported habitual classroom positioning. Non-parametric analyses examined variation across institutional, commuting, demographic, and health-related variables. Consistent with the hypothesis, attendance was primarily associated with macro-level academic and structural factors, with workload management and reliance on recorded teaching emerging as the highest-priority barriers across all institutions. Institutional differences reflected variation in lecture-capture provision and teaching practices. Journey length was associated with academic readiness barriers, particularly for medium-distance commuters, while demographic characteristics showed limited independent influence once structural factors were considered. In contrast, seating behaviour was strongly associated with micro-level affective factors, particularly social anxiety and sensitivity to crowding. Students reporting these factors tended to select peripheral or low-density areas, with minimal influence from institutional or commuting variables. These findings support a dual-dimensional model in which attendance is shaped by structural conditions, while spatial behaviour reflects sensory and emotional factors, with implications for lecture-capture, timetabling and inclusive learning environments in bioscience teaching.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Page et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: