Peer Review

Arrighi AI-C2 Utilization Spectrum Convenience to Competence - Innovative Education Solutions at TSU SMART Center

Material Detail page

Reviewed:: Oct 6, 2025 by Teacher Education

Bookmark

Ratings

Overall Rating:

Content Quality:

Effectiveness:

Ease of Use:

Overview:

The Arrighi AI C2 Scale is a diagnostic and assessment tool. This mateial provides an overview of the Arrighi AI-C2 Utilization Spectrum It is a structured scale, likely presented through a digital platform, designed to measure proficiency and comprehension in Artificial Intelligence.

The five stages of the scale (Passive Consumer, Active Inquirer, Critical Evaluator, Collaborative Creator, and Autonomous Innovator) are explained.

Type of Material:

An interactive webpage and a downloadable PDF Sldie.

Recommended Uses:

The slides can be used as a reference material for research purposes when investigating the levels of competence, cognitive enrichment, and self-efficacy among students. Likewise, the material can be used by teachers to distinguish at what level their students are at in the usage of AI.

Pre-assessment: To establish a baseline of student knowledge before beginning a course or training module.

Formative Assessment: To monitor student progress throughout a learning journey.

Summative Assessment: To evaluate final competency at the end of a course.

Program Evaluation: For institutions to assess the effectiveness of their AI curriculum.

Technical Requirements:

As a web-based tool hosted at `ai-tnstatesmartcenter.org`, it requires a standard internet connection and a modern web browser. No specific additional software or high-end hardware is mentioned but the user will need a browser with PDF viewing capabilities can open the file.

Identify Major Learning Goals:

The major goal is to accurately diagnose a user's current level of understanding of core AI concepts, models, and applications. It aims to make abstract competency levels of cognitive enrichment, confidence, and competence among learners regarding AI usage (like "C2") concrete and measurable.

Target Student Population:

Middle School, High School, College General Ed, College Lower Division, College Upper Division, Graduate School, Professional

Prerequisite Knowledge or Skills:

Users would need foundational literacy in technology and general science concepts. The specific prerequisite AI knowledge required would depend on the scale's starting point, but it is designed to assess from a defined baseline upward.

Suggested Prerequisite Knowledge or Skills:

Foundational Digital Literacy: Basic computer skills, including the ability to navigate a web browser and use standard input devices.

General Academic Proficiency: A level of reading comprehension and analytical thinking typically associated with upper-level high school or early college students.

Basic Understanding of Technology Concepts: Familiarity with fundamental ideas such as algorithms, data, and computer systems is highly recommended.

Contextual Awareness (Recommended): While not always a strict prerequisite, a general awareness that Artificial Intelligence is a field of computer science will help the user engage with the assessment more effectively. The assessment itself is designed to establish a baseline, so deep prior knowledge of AI is not required.

Content Quality

Rating:

Strengths:

The spectrum is able to provide distinct levels of AI usage, competence, and cognitive enrichment which would prove useful for teachers.

Validity and Appropriateness: The tool is built around the established "C2 Scale" framework, which lends credibility and ensures the concepts and models being assessed are valid and significant for the discipline.
Structured Approach: A well-defined scale provides a clear and organized progression of learning, making it easier to identify specific areas of strength and weakness.
Focus on Core Curriculum: By defining competency levels, it inherently identifies the core knowledge everyone in the AI field should master, providing a clear roadmap for learning.

Concerns:

Dependent on Scale Design: The ultimate quality is entirely dependent on the rigor and comprehensiveness with which the "C2 Scale" itself was developed. The review cannot verify the depth, accuracy, or completeness of the specific questions and concepts within the scale without direct access to the full item bank.
Potential for Rapid Obsolescence: The field of AI evolves quickly. The scale must be regularly updated to remain valid and include emerging models (e.g., new LLM architectures) and ethical considerations.
The word usage in Stage 4; it uses the word "partner". In the Computer Studies field, it is generally avoided to refer to AI as a "companion" or a "partner". It should always be referred to as a "tools".

Potential Effectiveness as a Teaching Tool

Rating:

Strengths:

This material serves as a good reference for researchers and teachers. For researchers, it provides a basis for investigating the cognitive skills among students in the usage of AI for learning. For teachers, it can be used to guide their identification of how students are using AI, and guide them accordingly.

Clear Goals: The teaching-learning goal is straightforward and easy to identify: to measure AI competency.
Promotes Metacognition: By providing a structured scale, it helps students and instructors understand what "proficiency" means, promoting conceptual understanding of the field's structure.
High Versatility: The tool can be used in a variety of ways (pre/post-testing, self-assessment, program evaluation) to achieve different learning and administrative goals.
Data-Driven Insight: It increases the potential for learning by providing concrete data, allowing for targeted interventions and personalized learning paths.

Concerns:

Assessment vs. Instruction: The tool diagnoses but does not teach. Its effectiveness is therefore dependent on being integrated with high-quality instructional materials that address the gaps it identifies.
Risk of "Teaching to the Test": If the scale becomes a high-stakes assessment, there is a risk that instruction may narrow to only what is tested, potentially limiting broader exploration.

Ease of Use for Both Students and Faculty

Rating:

Strengths:

The webpage is accessible and interactive. The font size and color make the resource easily readable. The images used are not necessary for full comprehension of the resource.

Web-Based Accessibility: Being online makes it easily accessible from various devices without complex installation.

Clear Layout (Assumed): The project site appears to have a clear and consistent layout, suggesting the tool itself is likely designed for straightforward navigation.

Structured Process: A standardized scale typically offers a clear, step-by-step process for the user, reducing confusion.

Concerns:

Unclear User Interface: Without a demo or direct access, the robustness of the software, the clarity of its instructions, and the intuitiveness of its navigation cannot be fully assessed.

Other Issues and Comments:: Lack of Empirical Validation: There is no publicly available evidence of pilot testing, psychometric analysis, or peer-reviewed validation. Without reliability and validity metrics, the scale’s credibility as an assessment tool remains uncertain.
Creative Commons: