Influence of a Veterinary Curriculum on the Approaches and Study Skills of Veterinary Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of the present study were to evaluate first-, second-, third-, and fourth-year veterinary medical students' approaches to studying and learning as well as the factors within the curriculum that may influence these approaches. A questionnaire consisting of the short version of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) was completed by 405 students, and it included questions relating to conceptions about learning, approaches to studying, and preferences for different types of courses and teaching. Descriptive statistics, factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha analysis, and log-linear analysis were performed on the data. Deep, strategic, and surface learning approaches emerged. There were a few differences between our findings and those presented in previous studies in terms of the correlation of the subscale monitoring effectiveness, which showed loading with both the deep and strategic learning approaches. In addition, the subscale alertness to assessment demands showed correlation with the surface learning approach. The perception of high workloads, the use of previous test files as a method for studying, and examinations that are based only on material provided in lecture notes were positively associated with the surface learning approach. Focusing on improving specific teaching and assessment methods that enhance deep learning is anticipated to enhance students' positive learning experience. These teaching methods include instructors who encourage students to be critical thinkers, the integration of course material in other disciplines, courses that encourage thinking and reading about the learning material, and books and articles that challenge students while providing explanations beyond lecture material.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".