Veterinary Curriculum Leaders: Motivators, Barriers, and Attributes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Curriculum leaders (individuals with responsibility for an institution's veterinary curriculum) play a vital role in driving local curriculum priorities, development, and accreditation. This study aimed to describe the career paths of curriculum leaders and identify what motivates them, the barriers they face, and the knowledge, skills, and attributes they perceive as essential for the role. Self-determination theory was used to identify tensions experienced within the role. An international online survey targeted at those identifying as curriculum leaders was completed by 45 participants. 91% of participants held a doctoral level qualification and/or clinical Boards; 82% had additional training in leadership; 38% had additional formal training in education. Motivators included a desire to make a difference, personal satisfaction with teaching and working with students, and social influences. Participants experienced barriers relating to self-development and achievement of their curriculum goals; participants described essential knowledge (of the profession, educational theory, and wider higher education context) and skills (leading teams, change management, and communication). Attributes considered important related both to self (open-minded, patient, resilient, able to see the big picture as well as detail) and relationships with others (approachable, listener, respectful and respected, supportive, credible). Tensions arose in participants' need for autonomy (experiencing barriers to achieving their goals), in their social relatedness (achieving curriculum goals while working with colleagues with conflicting priorities), and in perceptions of necessary competence (a need, but lack of opportunity, for advanced training in educational theory). The findings may help institutions more effectively support and train current and future curriculum leaders.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".