Assessing the Educational Value of a Zoo Placement for Veterinary Students: A Report on Student Feedback and Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zoological medicine is an expanding field with limited practical training opportunities for veterinary students. Those training programs that do exist require significant financial and resource investment by both veterinary schools and the zoological organizations involved. This article summarizes the findings of a retrospective survey of students carried out to ascertain the educational value of a compulsory 5-day-long zoo clinical placement for final-year veterinary students. We aimed to explore the placement’s potential impact on students’ knowledge and attitudes toward zoological medicine and the role of modern zoos and conservation. Data were collected by means of an end-of-placement questionnaire ( N = 200) and statistically analyzed for pre- versus post-placement changes and the effect of pre-placement interest and experience on student responses. Despite the placement’s short time frame and lack of opportunity for in-depth comprehensive training in zoological medicine, students reported that the placement had a positive educational impact. More than 90% of students stated that their understanding about modern zoos was good or excellent at the end of the placement (compared with 35.0% before the placement), and 43.0% reported that the placement had a positive impact on their attitudes toward zoos. Students self-reported an increased understanding of the work of zoo clinicians, and there was a highly significant positive change in the students’ reported opinions regarding wildlife conservation in general. We provide preliminary evidence to suggest that even short-duration but immersive zoo-based practical training has positive educational value for veterinary students.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".