McCoy Lise, Ganesan Natarajan, Rajagopalan Viswanathan, McKell Douglas, Niño Diego F, Swaim Mary Claire
Department of Academic Affairs, New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYITCOM), Jonesboro, USA.
Department of Biomedical and Anatomical Sciences, NYITCOM, Jonesboro, USA.
J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2025 May 14;12:23821205251339226. doi: 10.1177/23821205251339226. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
The growing presence of artificial intelligence (AI) in health professions has created a need to investigate its potential benefits and challenges in medical education. This article presents findings from an AI learner training needs analysis survey at a U.S. medical school. It compares faculty and student experiences and perspectives on using generative AI (GAI) and other AI tools for undergraduate medical education, focusing on their respective knowledge and learning preferences.
Faculty and students were surveyed using an online cross-sectional survey design to assess their GAI experience, AI patterns of use, adoption readiness, and training preferences. Surveys contained 14 to 15 multiple-choice items, with 8 items including a write-in option. A total of 68 faculty and 506 students responded to the survey, with a 50% response rate for faculty and 30% for students. Statistical tests were used to determine whether students and faculty differed significantly in their GAI experience.
We found that students were significantly more familiar with GAI than faculty ( < .001) but not significantly more experienced with GAI tools. There were no significant differences in frequency of use. Both groups considered AI tools and technology useful for personal, academic, research, and clinical applications. More than half of both groups were using AI for academic tasks. Both groups expressed concerns about the reliability of AI output, with faculty showing a much greater level of concern. Both groups identified several training formats as beneficial, with faculty preferring formal training (either online or in-person), followed by peer tutorials and self-study. On the other hand, students showed slightly greater interest in self-study than other formats.
Our findings will inform the design of two parallel structured AI training programs, focusing on faculty and student priorities, including hands-on skills practice, and emphasizing AI's ethical use, reliability, and limitations.
人工智能(AI)在健康职业领域的日益普及,使得有必要研究其在医学教育中的潜在益处和挑战。本文介绍了美国一所医学院进行的人工智能学习者培训需求分析调查的结果。它比较了教师和学生在本科医学教育中使用生成式人工智能(GAI)和其他人工智能工具的经验和观点,重点关注他们各自的知识和学习偏好。
采用在线横断面调查设计对教师和学生进行调查,以评估他们的GAI经验、人工智能使用模式、采用准备情况和培训偏好。调查问卷包含14至15个多项选择题,其中8个问题包括一个填写选项。共有68名教师和506名学生回复了调查,教师的回复率为50%,学生的回复率为30%。使用统计测试来确定学生和教师在GAI经验方面是否存在显著差异。
我们发现,学生比教师对GAI更熟悉(<.001),但在GAI工具方面的经验并没有显著更多。在使用频率上没有显著差异。两组都认为人工智能工具和技术对个人、学术、研究和临床应用有用。两组中超过一半的人将人工智能用于学术任务。两组都对人工智能输出的可靠性表示担忧,教师的担忧程度要高得多。两组都认为几种培训形式是有益的,教师更喜欢正式培训(在线或面对面),其次是同伴辅导和自学。另一方面,学生对自学的兴趣略高于其他形式。
我们的研究结果将为两个并行的结构化人工智能培训项目的设计提供信息,重点关注教师和学生的优先事项,包括实践技能练习,并强调人工智能的道德使用、可靠性和局限性。