REAL-AI Educator Studio

Capacity profile

Rate each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Part 1: Your practice (REAL-AI)

Draft instrument v0.3 — not validated

R Reflective Integration

Why this?

Where this comes from

  • Drafted for v1 of this studio as a face-valid item for the Reflective Integration pillar. Not yet reviewed by experts; planned for Delphi review (Study 5).Researcher-constructed · v1
  • Structured by the Reflective Integration pillar of the REAL-AI framework.REAL-AI framework paper (under review) · Reflective Integration

Status: Draft. Not yet reviewed by experts or validated.

Version: 0.3.0

I decide deliberately whether AI adds value before using it in a teaching or assessment task.
I review AI-generated content for accuracy before sharing it with students.
I can explain to students when and why I used AI in preparing material.
I reflect on how AI use changes what students actually learn.

E Equity by Design

Why this?

Where this comes from

  • Drafted for v1 of this studio as a face-valid item for the Equity by Design pillar. Not yet reviewed by experts; planned for Delphi review (Study 5).Researcher-constructed · v1
  • Structured by the Equity by Design pillar of the REAL-AI framework.REAL-AI framework paper (under review) · Equity by Design

Status: Draft. Not yet reviewed by experts or validated.

Version: 0.3.0

I consider whether all students have equal access to the AI tools I expect them to use.
I check AI outputs for bias related to language, culture, gender or patient population.
I adapt AI-supported activities for students with different language backgrounds or learning needs.
I know my institution's rules on student data and AI tools.

A Authentic Clinical Alignment

Why this?

Where this comes from

  • Drafted for v1 of this studio as a face-valid item for the Authentic Clinical Alignment pillar. Not yet reviewed by experts; planned for Delphi review (Study 5).Researcher-constructed · v1
  • Structured by the Authentic Clinical Alignment pillar of the REAL-AI framework.REAL-AI framework paper (under review) · Authentic Clinical Alignment

Status: Draft. Not yet reviewed by experts or validated.

Version: 0.3.0

My AI-supported activities connect to real clinical decisions students will face.
I can judge whether an AI output would be safe to apply to a patient.
I design assessments that stay valid when students have access to AI.
I link AI-supported learning to programme learning outcomes and accreditation standards.

L Learning-Centred Partnership

Why this?

Where this comes from

  • Drafted for v1 of this studio as a face-valid item for the Learning-Centred Partnership pillar. Not yet reviewed by experts; planned for Delphi review (Study 5).Researcher-constructed · v1
  • Structured by the Learning-Centred Partnership pillar of the REAL-AI framework.REAL-AI framework paper (under review) · Learning-Centred Partnership

Status: Draft. Not yet reviewed by experts or validated.

Version: 0.3.0

I discuss acceptable AI use openly with students rather than only prohibiting it.
I involve students in setting expectations for AI use in my module.
I use AI to give students more or better feedback, not to replace my judgement.
I model critical use of AI in front of students.

Part 2: Institutional conditions

Draft instrument v0.3 — not validated

These statements are about your programme and department.

Regulative

Why this?

Where this comes from

  • Profiles the regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive pillars of institutional conditions (Scott, 2014).Theory · Scott (2014)
  • Based on Study 1 (scoping review of AI in dental education): standards that specify student outcomes without institutional conditions act as exhortation, so institutional conditions are profiled alongside individual practice.Study 1 (scoping review of AI in dental education) · Design requirement DR2
  • The regulative pillar of institutional conditions (Scott, 2014).Theory · Scott (2014)

Status: Draft. Not yet reviewed by experts or validated.

Version: 0.3.0

My programme has a written position on how AI may be used in teaching and assessment.
I know what our accreditor currently expects regarding AI in the curriculum.
Our assessment regulations state how students' use of AI should be declared and treated.

Normative

Why this?

Where this comes from

  • Profiles the regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive pillars of institutional conditions (Scott, 2014).Theory · Scott (2014)
  • Based on Study 1 (scoping review of AI in dental education): standards that specify student outcomes without institutional conditions act as exhortation, so institutional conditions are profiled alongside individual practice.Study 1 (scoping review of AI in dental education) · Design requirement DR2
  • The normative pillar of institutional conditions (Scott, 2014).Theory · Scott (2014)

Status: Draft. Not yet reviewed by experts or validated.

Version: 0.3.0

Colleagues in my department discuss how AI should and should not be used in teaching.
Developing my teaching practice with AI is recognised in appraisal or promotion.
Staff have protected time to develop AI-related teaching.

Cultural-cognitive

Why this?

Where this comes from

  • Profiles the regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive pillars of institutional conditions (Scott, 2014).Theory · Scott (2014)
  • Based on Study 1 (scoping review of AI in dental education): standards that specify student outcomes without institutional conditions act as exhortation, so institutional conditions are profiled alongside individual practice.Study 1 (scoping review of AI in dental education) · Design requirement DR2
  • The cultural-cognitive pillar of institutional conditions (Scott, 2014).Theory · Scott (2014)

Status: Draft. Not yet reviewed by experts or validated.

Version: 0.3.0

In my department, students' use of AI is seen mainly as an academic-integrity problem.
It is taken for granted here that keeping up with AI is students' business rather than staff's.
Using AI critically is seen here as part of being a good clinical teacher.

Documents and practice

Why this?

Where this comes from

  • Probes the decoupling of formal structure from actual activity (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Reported separately, not part of any pillar mean.Theory · Meyer and Rowan (1977)
  • Design requirement DR7: the risk of ceremonial compliance under accreditation pressure (Study 2, Theme 2: documentation).Study 2 (interviews) · Design requirement DR7

Status: Draft. Not yet reviewed by experts or validated.

Version: 0.3.0

What our programme documents say about AI matches what actually happens in teaching.
0 of 26 answered