Why this matters for accreditation
Accreditation standards increasingly expect dental schools to teach with and about AI. Research suggests that the main limiting factor is not students or technology but educators' capacity, and the conditions institutions create for it.
When standards describe what students should achieve without describing what institutions must provide, schools under pressure can end up documenting AI integration rather than doing it. Institutional theory calls this gap between formal structure and actual activity decoupling.
This studio is designed to help close that gap: to build capacity that shows in practice, not only on paper.
Why this?
Where this comes from
- Based on Study 1 (scoping review of AI in dental education): educator capacity, not technology, appears to be the binding constraint.Study 1 (scoping review of AI in dental education) · Design requirement DR1
- Based on Study 1's conclusion: standards that specify student outcomes without institutional conditions act as exhortation.Study 1 (scoping review of AI in dental education) · Design requirement DR2
- Institutional theory: the decoupling of formal structure from actual activity (Meyer and Rowan, 1977).Theory · Meyer and Rowan (1977)
Status: Draft. Not yet reviewed by experts or validated.
Version: 0.3.1
How the REAL-AI pillars relate to accreditation themes
- RReflective Integration → curriculum design and quality assurance: deliberate, reviewed decisions about where AI belongs.
- EEquity by Design → fairness in assessment and learner support.
- AAuthentic Clinical Alignment → patient safety, clinical assessment validity and graduate outcomes.
- LLearning-Centred Partnership → student engagement and staff development.