Encouraging Critical Clinical Thinking (CCT) Skills in First-Year Veterinary Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First-year didactic course instructors at the University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine leverage earlier clinical rotation experiences with weekly "Clinical Correlations" exercises to provide early exposure to critical clinical thinking (CCT). This study evaluated the efficacy of individual and paired group exercises on CCT development. Before and after instruction, the Cornell Critical Thinking Test (Level Z) (CCTTZ) was administered. Based on the hypothesis that students with higher scores would coach lower-scoring colleagues during group exercises, heterogeneous groups with similar mean scores were established for the year. Students completed 14 individual and paired group exercises over 6 months. Exercises were designed to increase in complexity and decline in scaffolding. Seven of the exercises were cases using the Applied Learning Platform (ALP) at http://www.whenknowingmatters.com . Student analyses were scored according to a six-category critical-thinking rubric using a 5-point scale. Consistent with our hypothesis, individual and group rubric scores increased significantly, plateauing near the end of the year. Contrary to our hypothesis, mean overall CCTTZ scores did not change, but there was a small statistically significant increase in the ability to assess the validity of an argument. Student attitudes were mixed. Positive comments focused on reinforcement of prior didactic instruction, while negative comments focused on preparation time needed to conduct research on clinical concepts, and on a lack of explicit evaluation by summative examinations. Nonetheless, end-of-year GPAs correlated linearly with cumulative individual rubric scores. In summary, the value of early curriculum CCT training was confirmed when discipline-specific criteria were applied.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".