GenAI-condition students rated their PBL tutorial significantly higher after the tutorial than they rated their previous ePBLM-based experiences, especially clinical accuracy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? GenAI students' post-tutorial perception ratings rose significantly relative to their pre-tutorial ratings of ePBLM tutorials (beta = 5.77, p = .013), while ePBLM students' ratings did not change. → Allison Mool · Jacob Schmid · Thomas Johnston · Kodi J. Smith McCoy · Zachary Patterson · Hannah Feldt · William Thomas · Emma Fenner · Kevin Lu · Raya Gandhi · Adam Western · Brendan Seabold · Daniel Vollmer · Roshan Nallaveettil · Anthony Fanelli · Logan Schmillen · Shelley Tischkau · Anna T. Cianciolo · Pinckney Benedict · Richard Selinfreund 2026

Evidence¶

Allison Mool · Jacob Schmid · Thomas Johnston · Kodi J. Smith McCoy · Zachary Patterson · Hannah Feldt · William Thomas · Emma Fenner · Kevin Lu · Raya Gandhi · Adam Western · Brendan Seabold · Daniel Vollmer · Roshan Nallaveettil · Anthony Fanelli · Logan Schmillen · Shelley Tischkau · Anna T. Cianciolo · Pinckney Benedict · Richard Selinfreund 2026¶

Allison Mool · Jacob Schmid · Thomas Johnston · Kodi J. Smith McCoy · Zachary Patterson · Hannah Feldt · William Thomas · Emma Fenner · Kevin Lu · Raya Gandhi · Adam Western · Brendan Seabold · Daniel Vollmer · Roshan Nallaveettil · Anthony Fanelli · Logan Schmillen · Shelley Tischkau · Anna T. Cianciolo · Pinckney Benedict · Richard Selinfreund. (2026). Using Generative AI to Simulate Patient History-Taking in a Problem-Based Learning Tutorial: A Mixed-Methods Study. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-025-09929-4

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Regression analysis of the 8-item Learner Perceptions Survey completed by 26 second-year students (13 per condition) before and after the tutorial. The time-by-condition interaction favored genAI only; the article reports "beta = 5.77, 95% CI [1.27, 10.27], t(48) = 2.58, p = .013" with no standardized effect size.

"Linear regression modeling of the learner perceptions survey data (formula: survey_total ~ time * condition) revealed a significant effect of time (pre- vs. post-tutorial) for the genAI condition only [beta = 5.77, 95% CI [1.27, 10.27], t(48) = 2.58, p = .013"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The genAI-enabled patient presented pertinent positive findings consistently with the ePBLM but deviated on non-essential content — related
• Patient history recall was near ceiling in both conditions, with significant decline over two weeks but no difference between genAI and ePBLM conditions — related
• GenAI tutorials took longer than ePBLM tutorials, with approximately 10 additional minutes spent on history-taking — related
• Students in the generative AI-supported condition reported favorable perceptions of the instruction, with feedback for correcting mistakes rated highest — related
• Most students reported no change in study habits, but students who adapted their study strategies rated GenAI-evaluation assignments as significantly more helpful — related
• Controlled GenAI virtual-patient and communication studies reported short-term skill gains, but positive findings were not universal — related