A Survey of Veterinary Student Perceptions on Integrating ChatGPT in Veterinary Education Through AI-Driven Exercises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) in education is rapidly gaining attention, particularly with tools like ChatGPT, which have the potential to transform learning experiences. However, the application of such tools in veterinary education remains under-explored. This study aimed to design an AI-driven exercise and investigate veterinary students' perceptions regarding the integration of ChatGPT into their education, specifically within the year 5 Equine Medicine and Surgery course at City University of Hong Kong. Twenty-two veterinary students participated in an AI-driven exercise, where they created multiple-choice questions and evaluated ChatGPT's responses. The exercise was designed to promote active learning and a deeper understanding of complex concepts. The results indicate a generally positive reception, with 72.7% of students finding the exercise moderately to extremely engaging and 77.3% agreeing that it deepened their understanding. Additionally, 68.2% of students reported improvements in their critical thinking skills. Students with prior AI experience exhibited higher engagement levels and perceived the exercise as more effective. The study also found that engagement positively correlated with perceived usefulness, overall satisfaction, and the likelihood of recommending similar AI-driven exercises in other courses. Qualitative feedback underscored the interactive nature of this exercise and its usefulness in helping students understand complex concepts, although some students experienced confusion with AI-generated responses. While acknowledging the limitations of the technology and the small sample size, this study provides valuable insights into the potential benefits and challenges of incorporating AI-driven tools into veterinary education, highlighting the need for carefully considered integration of such tools into the curriculum.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".