The “Level of Use” Index as a Tool to Assess Professional Growth and Development of Graduate Students Studying the Educational Applications of Emergent Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The “Level of Use of an Innovation (LoU) and “Stages of Concern” (SoC) assessments are key components of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM). These tools can provide a clear articulation and characterization of the level of adoption of an organizational innovation in educational technology. An adaptation of the LoU was used to assess changes in understanding of and competence with educational technologies by participants in a graduate level course focused on the use of emergent technologies in professional development. The instrument reflected the criteria framework of the original LoU assessment tool, but was adapted to utilize a specifically structured self-reporting scale of the “level of use” index to promote collaborative self-reflection. Growth in knowledge of, and confidence with, specific emergent technologies is clearly indicated by the results, thus supporting the use of collaborative reflection and assessment of the professional development process to foster professional growth. Background The “Level of Use of an Innovation (LoU) and “Stages of Concern” (SoC) assessments, identified by Hall, et al (1975), as key components of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) can provide an articulation and characterization of the stages of adoption of an organizational innovation. The LoU has been identified as “a valuable diagnostic tool for planning and facilitating the change process” (Hall & Hord, 1987). The LoU is intended to describe the actual behaviors of adopters rather than affective attributes (Hall, et al, 1975). The thoughtful use of the LoU and SoC by a “professional learning community” (Dufour & Eaker, 1998) or a “community of professional practice” (Wenger, 1998) may allow members of such a community to self-assess their process and progress toward adoption of an innovation and to identify critical decision-points through-out the process. An adaptation of the LoU was previously used by one of us working with teachers in a school jurisdiction to allow members of that particular professional community of practice to self-assess personal and systemic professional growth during the course of the implementation of a staff development program. Components of the LoU and SoC indices have been adapted by various researchers to assess and facilitate personal,
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".