The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 2 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Generative AI education: Building a community of practice at Mayo Clinic
Open accessAbstract
Due to the rapid evolution of generative AI, we recommend a minimalist community of practice model to promote continuous social learning in an environment that fosters discussion, inquiry and collaboration while minimising administrative burden. To illustrate the relative ease with which such a model can be established and sustained, this paper describes an interdisciplinary collaborative effort by educators from multiple departments at Mayo Clinic. While we have encountered challenges, we are heartened by the engagement of our community as well as the unexpected benefits we enjoy as the founding members and facilitators of the community.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This opinion piece describes a virtual Generative AI in Education community of practice (CoP) launched at Mayo Clinic in October 2023, arguing that a "minimalist" CoP model can sustain continuous social learning about generative AI with minimal administrative burden. The authors report steady growth in attendance and unexpected benefits for facilitators, while noting challenges such as attrition during breakout rooms.
Key findings
- A minimalist CoP — four volunteer co-facilitators, one monthly planning meeting, informal sessions, and existing institutional tools (Microsoft Teams, email, SharePoint) — was sufficient to launch and sustain the community over its first year, contrasting with CoP models that require dedicated staff or departments.
- Attendance grew steadily throughout the year, largely through word-of-mouth, with new members in every session; members began presenting use cases inspired by earlier sessions, indicating the community shaped its own content.
- Breakout rooms caused attrition: several attendees left sessions when breakout rooms began, prompting a shift to full-group sessions where members could participate by speaking, using chat, or observing.
- The authors attribute success to four factors: a small team of volunteer leaders, an informal approach, use of existing tools, and complementing other institutional AI-education efforts. Facilitators also reported unexpected benefits, including improved sense of belonging and connection with colleagues across teams.
Methods
- Design: an opinion/reflective piece describing the establishment and first year of a virtual Generative AI in Education CoP at Mayo Clinic, launched October 2023 for healthcare educators.
- Data/sample: the authors' own facilitation experience as a four-person interdisciplinary team from multiple Mayo Clinic departments, plus attendee feedback gathered frequently to guide session planning; session topic themes and attendance over one year are presented in a table and figure.
- Analysis: narrative reflection on successes, challenges, and lessons learned; no formal outcome measurement was conducted during this period.
Limitations
- Stated by the paper: the authors note they will "formally evaluate" the CoP in future work to directly measure impact on participants' work using the Value-Creation Framework (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2019) — i.e., impact has not yet been measured.
- Evident from the text: the account is a single-institution, single-community opinion piece with no comparison group, no reported attendance figures in the prose, and no participant outcome data; the reported benefits for facilitators and members are self-reported and anecdotal.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
18 No basis given · 4 Own interpretation · 4 Own result · 2 Sources not found
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also see the impacts of our CoP demonstrated within our sessions when our members present use cases inspired by their learnings from previous sessions.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, we found that with deliberate planning, a CoP can thrive with minimal administrative burden on its facilitators by distributing the workload and leveraging existing tools within the institution.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, we noticed several attendees left the session when breakout rooms began.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The progression highlights how the community not only learns together but also shapes the content itself, an essential principle of CoPs (de Carvalho-Filho et al., Citation2020).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites de Carvalho-Filho et al., Citation2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One early challenge we noted was attrition associated with breakout rooms.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Facilitating the CoP creates a feeling of doing our work ‘together’, even when working within our separate teams.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, we found unexpected benefits in our facilitator planning meetings; regularly brainstorming together has improved our sense of belonging within our organisation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our CoP reduces some of these barriers by centring data security and our organisation’s regulations in our conversations.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
- It may state two separate claims as one. 6
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also learned that there are unexpected benefits for us as facilitators.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Working together with those efforts, while setting a clear intention and audience for our initiative, has amplified their impacts.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our members are eager to explore applications of generative AI within education at Mayo Clinic.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each month, our CoP sessions became more sophisticated and nuanced as participants’ knowledge of generative AI grew.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, it helps us build relationships with fellow educators who we may not have otherwise met, allowing for additional formal collaboration and informal connection outside of the CoP sessions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and this experience of establishing and co-facilitating a CoP around a topic that is important to us increased our connection.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All four of us co-facilitate discussions, which minimises disruptions when one of us cannot attend a session.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Keeping our effort informal keeps it simple.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is not unique to our CoP, as we noticed this in other virtual gatherings as well.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“What is unique about our CoP, however, is how easy it has been to establish and maintain, contrasting other CoP models (Brooks et al., Citation2024).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brooks et al., Citation2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We often hear from colleagues that they are excited by AI but overwhelmed; they are unsure where to begin or how to engage, particularly given organisational constraints and concerns about data privacy.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This allows us to leverage what is available without additional effort.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Every session included new members, indicating an extension in our reach.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With so many potential topics as generative AI quickly evolves, feedback from members helps us prioritise the most salient and urgent topics.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our attendance grew steadily throughout the year (), largely through word-of-mouth.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This flexibility is key, allowing for engaging conversations while providing a low-stress environment for attendees.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Breakout sessions can be anxiety-inducing and participants may not be able to engage in breakout discussions if they are in a space where they cannot use their microphone or camera.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With four facilitators, the administrative load for staying on top of trends in generative AI, planning and facilitating sessions is manageable and enjoyable ().”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We attribute the success of our CoP to four factors that we believe can aid others interested in establishing a CoP:”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It describes how our experiences illustrate that the community of practice (CoP) model is a viable option for any group in higher education that wants to take an active role in growing their confidence and competency with generative AI.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Generative AI is rapidly evolving.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By learning from peers about how generative AI is being applied at our institution, rather than simply learning what generative AI can theoretically do, participants are better prepared to integrate it into their work.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
Breakout sessions can be anxiety-inducing and participants may not be able to engage in breakout discussions if they are in a space where they cannot use their microphone or camera.
“We know breakout sessions can be anxiety-inducing and that participants may not be able to engage in breakout discussions if they are in a space where they cannot use their microphone or camera.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Generative AI is rapidly evolving.
“Due to the rapid evolution of generative AI, we recommend a minimalist community of practice model to promote continuous social learning in an environment that fosters discussion, inquiry and collaboration while minimising administrative burden.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“A recent report on incorporating community of practice (CoP) into genAI addresses social learning [5] but does not address the complex interplay between individual task-performance needs and social learning mechanisms.”
Citations
Cites
Evolution of Wenger's concept of community of practice
LI, L. C., Grimshaw, J., Nielsen, C. P., Judd, M., Coyte, P. C., & Graham, I. D. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-11 · Cited by 778
Twelve tips for implementing a community of practice for faculty development
de Carvalho-Filho, M. A., Tio, R. A., & Steinert, Y. (2020) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2018.1552782 · Cited by 216 · cited 3×
“Lastly, a known challenge in building a CoP is the resources required to successfully launch and maintain the community, with some organisations using dedicated staff/ departments to support CoPs (Brooks et al., 2024).”
Boundaries and Boundary Objects: An Evaluation Framework for Mixed Methods Research
Wenger-Trayner, B., Wenger, É., Cameron, J., Eryigit‐Madzwamuse, S., & Hart, A. (2017) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689817732225 · Cited by 130
Ownership of Learning in Teacher Education
Rainer, J. D., & Matthews, M. W. (2002) · Action in Teacher Education · doi:10.1080/01626620.2002.10463264 · Cited by 58
Seeing Is Belonging: Remote Working, Identity and Staying Connected
Dery, K., & Hafermalz, E. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-287-612-6_6 · Cited by 36
Supporting student collaboration in online breakout rooms through interactive group activities
Read, D., Barnes, S. M., Hughes, O., Ivanova, I., Sessions, A., & Wilson, P. J. (2022) · New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences · doi:10.29311/ndtps.v0i17.3946 · Cited by 19
Brooks, S. P., Adewuyi, E. E., Wasylak, T., Thomson, D., Davison, S. N., & Storey, K. (2024) · Learning Health Systems · doi:10.1002/lrh2.10412 · Cited by 16
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Impacto educativo de la inteligencia artificial generativa:
Chico, F. F., Roldán, M. G. R., Gordon, D. M. G., Bracho, F. I. N., & Guerra, D. (2026) · Revista Ecos de la Academia · doi:10.53358/ezehzt04 · Cited by 2
Cho, Y., & Szarek, J. L. (2025) · Medical Science Educator · doi:10.1007/s40670-025-02520-7 · Cited by 1
“A recent report on incorporating community of practice (CoP) into genAI addresses social learning [5] but does not address the complex interplay between individual task-performance needs and social learning mechanisms.”
Magic and disruption: A community of practice response to AI in health education
Tan, K. L., Vince, M., d’Unienville, N. M. A., Roberts-Thomson, A. J., Darzanos, K., & Butler, M. (2026) · Focus on Health Professional Education A Multi-Professional Journal · doi:10.11157/fohpe-vol27iss3id981
Metadata
- Authors
- Schultz, K. E., Van Erp, N. L., Minter, C. J., & Nelson, K. B.
- Affiliations
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- Mayo Clinic
- Venue
- Innovations in Education and Teaching International
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2025-05-21
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 882-887
- ISSN
- 1470-3297 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-3300
- OpenAlex
- W4410544868
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Innovations in Education and Teaching International (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- generative AI, artificial intelligence in education, communities of practice, social learning, interdisciplinary collaboration, Mayo Clinic, medical education, continuous learning, administrative burden
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Generative AI education: Building a community of practice at Mayo Clinic. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/14703297.2025.2507299
- The paper
- Schultz, K. E., Van Erp, N. L., Minter, C. J., & Nelson, K. B. (2026). Generative AI education: Building a community of practice at Mayo Clinic. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2025.2507299
