Experiential Learning in Primary Care: Impact on Veterinary Students’ Communication Confidence
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiential learning is essential in medical and veterinary student education and can improve students’ communication with clients during medical appointments. There is limited research in veterinary education investigating the effectiveness of experiential learning environments to provide an integrative approach to teaching. The present study uses an experiential learning environment to introduce an integrative approach to communication skills training in veterinary clinical education. Participants were final year veterinary students whose self-confidence around 28 common clinical communication statements frequently discussed in clinical practice was assessed before and after a 3-week experiential learning rotation. Client and veterinary doctor ratings on students’ performance were also assessed. Students’ self-confidence in all but one of the clinical communication statements improved significantly ( p < .05). Veterinary doctor and clients’ ratings were overall positive. The results from this study supports the use of experiential learning to promote an integrated learning approach in veterinary education.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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 it