Do Veterinary Students See a Need for More In-Course Discussion? A Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rather than merely transferring information, veterinary education should stimulate and motivate students and encourage them to think. Currently in veterinary education, most curricula use the method of frontal teaching (e.g., in lectures). A student-centered critical approach to information is rarely used. Our research sought to determine if students consider in-course discussion useful and if sufficient possibilities for discussion are provided and supported by their lecturers. In December 2013, we conducted a survey of fourth-year students. Specifically, we wanted to know if students consider in-course discussion about course content useful for successful learning and if students wish to have more opportunities for discussion during class time. Finally, we wanted to identify barriers that limit the students' motivation and ability to engage in discussion of course content. In total, 105 students completed the survey. The majority of students agreed or strongly agreed that clinical topics should be discussed during class time. Frequently stated reasons were improved learning (85.7%) and the opportunity to look at topics from different perspectives (92.4%). In conclusion, we found a considerable dearth of and request for discussion within veterinary education. In light of these findings, we emphasize the need for new teaching strategies that promote independent thinking and critical questioning. We suggest the implementation of more discussion opportunities in well considered and moderated settings in veterinary teaching.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".