Teach Students to Question AI: A Practical Nursing Classroom Activity

A polished AI-generated rationale can look ready to submit. It may have clear headings, confident language, and an orderly plan. The teaching question is what the student can do with it: identify an unsupported assumption, check a clinical claim, explain a correction, and defend a decision without relying on the tool's confidence.

For nurse educators, that creates a useful starting point. Give students a small, structured opportunity to examine an AI response while keeping their own reasoning visible throughout the activity.

The National League for Nursing's 2025 vision statement calls for AI literacy and responsible integration in nursing education. It also highlights misinformation, bias, privacy, and overreliance as concerns that need deliberate attention. Read the NLN vision statement.

Start with the learning you need to see

Before choosing a tool, finish this sentence: “After this activity, students should be able to…”

Choose an observable action. For example: support a nursing priority with case evidence, verify a patient-teaching claim, or explain why a proposed response needs revision. “Use AI” is too broad to tell you what students have learned.

Then decide which work students must do independently. If the objective is prioritization, ask them to establish an initial priority before they see an AI response. If the objective is appraisal, require a record of what they checked and why.

This approach keeps the assignment small enough to teach and specific enough to assess.

Prepare the activity before class

Use a fictional case you created or have permission to use. Select a brief, instructor-reviewed AI response generated through a tool approved for the intended educational use. Label the excerpt as AI-generated material for critique. Choose a response with material for each annotation task below. Record the tool, date, and prompt. Review the response against current clinical references, prepare corrections, and save the exact version students will examine.

A possible prompt is:

“Using only this fictional case, suggest two nursing priorities. Identify which supplied cues support each priority and what information is missing. Do not add patient details. This is an educational exercise.”

The prompt is a starting point. It does not guarantee an accurate or complete answer. If the output contains unsafe advice, plan how to identify and correct it promptly. Do not distribute an unreviewed response as a model answer.

Provide the same excerpt and reference access to everyone. This lets students participate without creating personal AI accounts or buying subscriptions.

Try a 20-minute response audit

This is a suggested classroom exercise, not an established or validated assessment tool. Adjust the complexity to students' preparation and the course objective.

Minutes 0–4: Commit to an independent response

Give students the fictional case without the AI excerpt. Ask for their initial priority, the cues supporting it, and one question they would need answered before proceeding.

Keep this first response brief. It gives students something concrete to revisit and gives you a view of their reasoning before the AI output enters the discussion.

Minutes 4–8: Annotate the AI excerpt

Reveal the response and ask students to mark three things:

• A statement supported by information in the case
• A clinical claim that needs checking against a reliable reference
• An assumption, omission, or conclusion they would question

Allow students to identify an unresolved concern when they cannot establish an error. Ask them to distinguish “I disagree” from “I can show why this needs revision.”

Minutes 8–14: Verify one important claim

Each pair selects one clinically meaningful claim and checks it using an appropriate current source, such as a professional guideline or an assigned reference approved for the activity.

Require a short verification note: What is the claim? Where did you check it? What does the source support? Does it apply to this patient's circumstances? What remains uncertain?

If the AI response provides a citation, students should open the source and check the relevant passage. A reference list alone does not demonstrate that a claim is supported.

Minutes 14–20: Revise and explain

Students revise their initial response and describe one decision they retained or changed. They should identify what influenced that decision: case evidence, a verified source, peer discussion, or instructor clarification.

Close with the instructor's review of the important clinical points. Correct errors explicitly and give students a clear version to retain for study. Ask one student to explain how the reasoning would change if a relevant case detail changed.

Make privacy and transparency part of the setup

For this activity, keep real patient information and identifiable student work out of the AI prompt. Do not assume that removing a name makes a clinical narrative appropriate to upload. Follow institutional and clinical-partner requirements, and verify that the selected tool and intended use are permitted before entering data.

Write a short assignment-specific statement explaining what AI use is allowed and what students must disclose. A useful disclosure identifies the tool, its purpose, and how the student checked or revised its contribution. Faculty can model the same openness when presenting the example.

The American Nurses Association's position statement emphasizes appropriate use, transparency, reliability, fairness, and protection of patient data. These are useful considerations when planning an educational activity, while local policies determine the permitted tools and uses. Read ANA's position statement.

Assess the decisions students can defend

Give credit for a sound explanation, a well-chosen source, a justified correction, and an honest statement of uncertainty. Include a question about whose circumstances the response may have overlooked, such as language access or the resources needed to carry out its suggestions.

Before repeating the activity, ask yourself:

• Could students explain the final decision without reopening the AI response?
• Did verification change any conclusions?
• Was the workload manageable for students and faculty?
• What should remain independent in the next assignment?

A useful AI activity leaves evidence of the student's own judgment. Start with one response, one claim to verify, and one decision to defend. Build from what students can actually explain.

Questions or comments about this post? Email hello@grangern.com.