Am I Being Understood? Veterinary Students’ Perceptions of the Relationship between Their Language Background, Communication Ability, and Clinical Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During clinical workplace learning, effective communication between veterinary students and clinical staff is of paramount importance to facilitating learning, assessment, and patient care. Although studies in health sciences education have indicated that students may experience communication difficulties as a result of linguistic, cultural, and other factors and that these difficulties can affect clinical learning and academic outcomes, this has not yet been explored in veterinary clinical educational contexts. In this study, the authors sought to identify whether final-year veterinary students perceived that their communication ability influenced their clinical learning and, if so, whether language background was of significance. Seventy-one students from a final-year cohort at an Australian veterinary school completed a student perception survey at the end of their clinical training. Exploratory factor analysis was used to investigate the extent to which learners perceived that their communication ability influenced their clinical learning. Two factors explained 72.3% of total variance. Factor 1 related to communication ability as a source of concern; Factor 2 related to comprehending and contributing to clinical conversations. Communication ability as a source of concern differed significantly ( p < .001) between students who did and did not have an English-speaking background, but there was no significant difference between these two student groups for Factor 2. Although language background was associated with self-perceived communication ability, evidence also emerged that students may experience communication challenges during clinical learning, irrespective of their language background.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".