Changing Perceptions of Veterinary Undergraduates to Module Re-Structuring as They Progress Through the Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evaluation of student and faculty opinions on curricular changes in veterinary medical education is an essential part of the quality assurance process. This study investigates if the perceived educational value of a newly introduced module (veterinary pathobiology) in the earlier stages of a veterinary curriculum changes as students progress into the later phases of their training. Data were collected by anonymous questionnaire from two sequential final year student cohorts in 2021 and 2022. These students had previously been surveyed on their views of the new integrated pathobiology module immediately after taking it in their third year. Within 2 years, student satisfaction with the module's learning objectives increased significantly. Final year students had much clearer appreciation of how this pedagogical innovation enhanced their learning and that this was particularly true of the case-based learning approach adopted. While faculty teaching these students in their final year clinical pathobiology rotation expressed the view that overall, student performance was no different when compared to previous years, this somewhat disappointing finding needed to be viewed in the context of the intervening COVID-19 pandemic where face-to-face teaching of students over many months had been severely curtailed as had student attendance of their extramural studies. This study confirms a positive effect of an integrated curricular intervention in veterinary undergraduate education and highlights the necessity of student evaluation at multiple time points as their perception of the value of such changes appears to be linked to their experience and expectations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".