{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01483924154987634, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.353403141361256, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An interactive, student-centered approach to teaching large-group sessions in veterinary clinical pathology.

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to describe and evaluate an interactive, student-centered approach to teaching large-group sessions in Veterinary Clinical Pathology. The strategy was designed to operate in the place of expository lectures and to encourage a deep approach to learning though discussion and problem solving.


METHODOLOGY
The teaching strategy ran over two hours and required students to answer a series of questions on the topic to be discussed before attending the session. In the first part of the session, limited information and laboratory data related to a series of cases were presented to the students for discussion and analysis. These cases were selected on the basis of their usefulness for discussion in relation to the answers to the previously set questions and to reinforce an approach to the analysis of laboratory data. After a break, students were given a series of multiple-choice questions, related to the topic previously discussed, to answer. Students were given the opportunity to discuss the reasons for their answers. Finally, the students were given information and laboratory data from an unknown case and asked to analyze them, through a mechanism previously practiced in small-group tutorials, in order to reach conclusions and to consider the need for further investigation and implications for case management. A consensus diagnosis and plan for the case was reached after reflective observation and discussion. The teaching strategy was evaluated, utilizing teacher reflection and a student questionnaire, on the basis of its success in encouraging active and simulated experiential learning.


CONCLUSION
The evaluation of one session indicated that students strongly valued the strategy in relation to actively engaging them in discussion, providing feedback on how they were learning, and enhancing their understanding of how theoretical knowledge can be applied to actual clinical cases. These pedagogical principles appeared to give students greater confidence in analyzing laboratory data through a mechanism of diagnostic reasoning. More sessions of this kind, tied to specific content or skills areas, will allow better evaluation of the perceived student outcomes, which can then be correlated with actual student outcomes through formal assessment.