Are the Concepts of Andragogy and Pedagogy Relevant to Veterinary Undergraduate Teaching?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowles and colleagues have described teaching methods as being either teacher centered, with dependent learning (pedagogy), or learner centered, with independent learning underpinned by the learners' experience and intrinsic motivation (andragogy). This paper argues that both models can be recognized within veterinary undergraduate programs. Veterinary students enter the program with a high level of intrinsic motivation and are prepared to invest considerably in comprehending the material that is presented to them. While this should result in learners whose behavior fits the assumptions underlying andragogy, information overload, poor communication of the relevance of material, teaching by transmission, and examination by memorization often confine learning to the dependent learning characteristic of pedagogical approaches. Students' experience and practical ability should develop as they progress through the program. Drawing upon experience provides opportunities for both fleshing out and putting in context the declarative knowledge from the didactic components of the curriculum. Where this is achieved (either in the clinical or preclinical curriculum), students' motivation and interest is stimulated, resulting in andragogical responses of enhanced motivation and engagement with the subject. Pedagogy and andragogy can, however, be complementary, rather than antithetical. Students enter a new subject with minimal experience and little knowledge about it, so a pedagogical methodology may be the most efficient way of initiating understanding. However, as understanding develops, an andragogical method becomes more appropriate, progressively developing students' independence of learning. The cycle may repeat itself during the program, with the balance changing along with changes in knowledge, goals, experience, and context.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".