MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061584443 · doi:10.3138/jvme.29.2.105

An Interactive, Student-Centered Approach to Teaching Large-Group Sessions in Veterinary Clinical Pathology

2002· article· en· W2061584443 on OpenAlex
Paul J. Canfield

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicVeterinary Practice and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)Set (abstract data type)Experiential learningPlan (archaeology)Medical educationMathematics educationPsychologyTeaching methodComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to describe and evaluate an interactive, student-centered approach to teaching large-group sessions in Veterinary Clinical Pathology. The strategy was designed to operate in the place of expository lectures and to encourage a deep approach to learning though discussion and problem solving. METHODOLOGY: The teaching strategy ran over two hours and required students to answer a series of questions on the topic to be discussed before attending the session. In the first part of the session, limited information and laboratory data related to a series of cases were presented to the students for discussion and analysis. These cases were selected on the basis of their usefulness for discussion in relation to the answers to the previously set questions and to reinforce an approach to the analysis of laboratory data. After a break, students were given a series of multiple-choice questions, related to the topic previously discussed, to answer. Students were given the opportunity to discuss the reasons for their answers. Finally, the students were given information and laboratory data from an unknown case and asked to analyze them, through a mechanism previously practiced in small-group tutorials, in order to reach conclusions and to consider the need for further investigation and implications for case management. A consensus diagnosis and plan for the case was reached after reflective observation and discussion. The teaching strategy was evaluated, utilizing teacher reflection and a student questionnaire, on the basis of its success in encouraging active and simulated experiential learning. CONCLUSION: The evaluation of one session indicated that students strongly valued the strategy in relation to actively engaging them in discussion, providing feedback on how they were learning, and enhancing their understanding of how theoretical knowledge can be applied to actual clinical cases. These pedagogical principles appeared to give students greater confidence in analyzing laboratory data through a mechanism of diagnostic reasoning. More sessions of this kind, tied to specific content or skills areas, will allow better evaluation of the perceived student outcomes, which can then be correlated with actual student outcomes through formal assessment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.496
GPT teacher head0.616
Teacher spread0.120 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it