Confidence as a Barrier to the Use of Problem-Based Learning in Veterinary Undergraduate Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem-based or case-based learning is a popular method of instruction in clinical degrees such as veterinary science, nursing, and medicine. It is difficult, however, for students to adapt to this learning method, and this difficulty has been well described. The present study surveyed first-year undergraduate veterinary students at the University of Nottingham about the challenges they faced upon beginning problem-based learning sessions. A surprisingly large percentage of students (36% of females and 38% of males) reported a lack of confidence in speaking in front of the other students as a concern they experienced during their first term. Conversely, only 10% of the female students (and none of the male students) reported overconfidence as a problem. This is in contrast to the perceptions of the staff members who facilitated the sessions who reported that 14% of the students exhibited underconfidence and 14% exhibited overconfidence. The difference between the female and male students' responses as well as the difference between the perceptions of students and those of facilitators is statistically significant (G-test p<.05).
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 | 0.005 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".