A Training Needs Analysis for AI and Generative AI in Medical Education: Perspectives of Faculty and Students.

IF 2 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Lise McCoy, Natarajan Ganesan, Viswanathan Rajagopalan, Douglas McKell, Diego F Niño, Mary Claire Swaim
{"title":"A Training Needs Analysis for AI and Generative AI in Medical Education: Perspectives of Faculty and Students.","authors":"Lise McCoy, Natarajan Ganesan, Viswanathan Rajagopalan, Douglas McKell, Diego F Niño, Mary Claire Swaim","doi":"10.1177/23821205251339226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that students were significantly more familiar with GAI than faculty (<i>P</i> < .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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":45121,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development","volume":"12 ","pages":"23821205251339226"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12078978/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205251339226","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: We found that students were significantly more familiar with GAI than faculty (P < .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.

Conclusion: 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.

医学教育中人工智能和生成式人工智能的培训需求分析:教师和学生的视角。
导语:随着人工智能(AI)在卫生专业领域的日益普及,有必要研究其在医学教育中的潜在益处和挑战。本文介绍了在美国某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。方法:使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体验、AI使用模式、采用准备情况和培训偏好。调查包含14到15个多项选择题,其中8个项目包括填空选项。共有68名教师和506名学生参与了调查,其中教师的回复率为50%,学生的回复率为30%。统计测试用于确定学生和教师在GAI体验上是否有显著差异。结果:我们发现学生对GAI的熟悉程度明显高于教师(P结论:我们的研究结果将为两个并行结构化人工智能培训计划的设计提供信息,重点关注教师和学生的优先事项,包括动手技能练习,并强调人工智能的道德使用、可靠性和局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development
Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信