Actionable companion · Feedback & scaffolding

Learning with agency: AI Education for Fourth-Year Medical Students: Two-Year Experience of a Web-Based, Self-Guided Curriculum and Mixed Methods Study

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not claims or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.

Read original paper Search paper agent CC BY 4.0

Evidence and context

Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Higher education. Health-professions learning must be distinguished from K–12 instruction.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are poised to have a substantial impact in the health care space. While a plethora of web-based resources exist to teach programming skills and ML model development, there are few introductory curricula specifically tailored to medical students without a background in data science or programming. Programs that do exist are often restricted to a specific specialty. Objective We hypothesized that a 1-month elective for fourth-year medical students, composed of high-quality existing web-based resources and a project-based structure, would empower students to learn about the impact of AI and ML in their chosen specialty and begin contributing to innovation in their field of interest. This study aims to evaluate the success of this elective in improving self-reported confidence scores in AI and ML. The authors also share our curriculum with other educators who may be interested in its adoption. Methods This elective was offered in 2 tracks: technical (for students who were already competent programmers) and nontechnical (with no technical prerequisites, focusing on building a conceptual understanding of AI and ML). Students established a conceptual foundation of knowledge using curated web-based resources and relevant research papers, and were then tasked with completing 3 projects in their chosen specialty: a data set analysis, a literature review, and an AI project proposal. The project-based nature of the elective was designed to be self-guided and flexible to each student’s interest area and career goals. Students’ success was measured by self-reported confidence in AI and ML skills in pre and postsurveys. Qualitative feedback on students’ experiences was also collected. Results This web-based, self-directed elective was offered on a pass-or-fail basis each month to fourth-year students at Emory University School of Medicine beginning in May 2021. As of June 2022, a total of 19 students had successfully completed the elective, representing a wide range of chosen specialties: diagnostic radiology (n=3), general surgery (n=1), internal medicine (n=5), neurology (n=2), obstetrics and gynecology (n=1), ophthalmology (n=1), orthopedic surgery (n=1), otolaryngology (n=2), pathology (n=2), and pediatrics (n=1). Students’ self-reported confidence scores for AI and ML rose by 66% after this 1-month elective. In qualitative surveys, students overwhelmingly reported enthusiasm and satisfaction with the course and commented that the self-direction and flexibility and the project-based design of the course were essential. Conclusions Course participants were successful in diving deep into applications of AI in their widely-ranging specialties, produced substantial project deliverables, and generally reported satisfaction with their elective experience. The authors are hopeful that a brief, 1-month investment in AI and ML education during medical school will empower this next generation of physicians to pave the way for AI and ML innovation in health care. Keywords: medical education, machine learning, artificial intelligence, elective curriculum, medical student, student, students, elective, electives, curricula, curriculum, lesson plan, lesson plans, educators, educator, teacher, teachers, teaching, computer programming, programming, coding, programmer, programmers, self guided, self directed

What kind of evidence is this?

Supporting AI learning science · Qualitative / mixed methods

Stage: Higher education. Screening labels describe reported context and study-design language. They are not a risk-of-bias rating or proof of effectiveness for an age band.

Study methods · source passage

We built our elective following advice on designing medical electives with the principles articulated by Ramalho et al [6], which emphasize that a one-size-fits-all approach is often inadequate and that electives benefit from allowing students to carve their own paths. Creating a medical elective in an overloaded, overworked environment is nontrivial, but prior studies on peer-organized coursework gave us insights into the effectiveness of peer-organized research in building academic confidence, as well as the importance of clearly defined learning objectives [7,8].

Limitations and uncertainty · source passage

Limitations of this study include the small number of participants, especially in the Technical track, restricting the generalizability of this study. Only 2 (11%) students chose the Technical track, so there is insufficient data to evaluate this curriculum; this was likely due to the requirement that students interested in the Technical track have in-depth coding experience and receive approval from the course director to ensure a high likelihood of success. However, the authors recommend screening applicants to make sure that they do in fact possess the required level of comfort in coding before attempting to develop an ML model, as we observed a tendency for students to underestimate the complexity of this task. Based on qualitative observations that students spent more time than expected preparing data for training, the authors suggest providing select, cleaned data sets for students in the Technical track, allowing them to focus on model building, training, and testing.

Design the system before the pilot

Use this study to inform a learning mechanism or implementation question. It is not direct evidence that autonomous agents improve learning. Keep the proposed agent behavior separate from what the source actually tested.

Give feedback on the learner’s reasoning, then fade hints. Record whether the learner can complete the next task without that scaffold.
Use plan–attempt–check–reflect prompts and compare confidence with actual performance. Keep learner choice and reflection visible.

A 90-day district pilot

Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
Days 16–30 · Design. Choose one disciplinary task. Require a first attempt, a documented AI consultation, a critique of the output and an independent explanation. Align the comparison group and scoring rubric with the same objective. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning and accuracy on a new task without AI. Distinguish model examination scores, student perceptions and actual learner gains; only the last directly tests educational benefit. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Areeba Abid; Avinash Murugan; Imon Banerjee; Saptarshi Purkayastha; Hari Trivedi; Judy Gichoya. AI Education for Fourth-Year Medical Students: Two-Year Experience of a Web-Based, Self-Guided Curriculum and Mixed Methods Study. JMIR Medical Education (2024-02-20). https://doi.org/10.2196/46500

Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.