The phrase "at the instructor level" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to refer to a specific tier or position within an educational or training context, typically indicating a level of expertise or authority related to instruction.
Example: "The training program is designed to enhance teaching skills at the instructor level, ensuring that educators are well-prepared to engage their students."
Alternatives: "at the teaching level" or "at the educator level".
As argued by Tess (2013: 66), a " reason that may explain the paucity of studies is that SNS (social networking sites) integration is a choice made at the instructor level rather than an institutional decision.
To investigate classroom features at the instructor level, we consider instructor reports of student-centered practices, a variable that parallels the student reports of student-centered practices, and the existence of a common final exam.
They include instructors' slowness in adopting technology as an educational tool, decisions related to educational technology and its place in the curriculum and more importantly, Tess (2013) argues that integration of social media is a choice made at the instructor level rather than at an institutional level.
The final model accounted for 21% of the 79% of variance identified at individual level and 100% of the 21% of variation identified at instructor level.
There was lack of variance at instructor level in the adherence model, this seems unlikely to be because the instructor does not have an influence, but rather because the variation was too small (i.e., there were too few participants not adhering, and lack of differences between instructors).
The final model (Table 4) accounted for 23% of the 73% of variance identified by the null model at individual participant level and 100% of the 27% of variation identified at instructor level.
This leaves no variance left to be explained at instructor level, but 50% of the potential variance at individual participant level is left unexplained by the final model.
The final two level null model of baseline to 3-month attendance accounted for 73% variance at individual participant level and 27% variation at instructor level.
The null model accounted for 79% of variance at individual participant level and 21% of variation at instructor level.
To ensure consistency, we tested a two level null model using MLwiN for the adherence outcome but found no variance explained at instructor level (Table 5).
It seems that factors at both the student and instructor level could lead to disparities in who participates in the biology classroom.
