5.1 Needs Assessment
Candidates conduct needs assessments to determine school-wide, faculty, grade-level, and subject area strengths and weaknesses to inform the content and delivery of technology-based professional learning programs. (PSC 5.1/ISTE 4a)
Artifact: Individual Teacher Technology Assessment
Reflection:
The “Individual Teacher Technology Assessment” is a narrative describing my evaluation of a colleague’s technology implementation level. I used multiple data sources, including an interview and observations, to assess the LoTi (2013) of an English teacher at my school and then proposed a model for technology-related professional learning addressing the identified needs. I completed this project as part of the requirements for ITEC 7460 Professional Learning and Technology Innovation. The needs assessment led to 5 one-to-one technology-coaching sessions with the teacher; these coaching sessions are outlined in Field Experience Log #1 for ITEC 7460. Through this experience, the teacher gained familiarity with and confidence in implementing new technology tools in her classroom, and I was able to practice several technology coaching techniques.
To complete this artifact, I first conducted a needs assessment to determine the strengths and weaknesses of my teacher colleague. I created two surveys, the first of which assessed her LoTi (Level of Technology Integration Level). The teacher ranked each statement related to technology use in her classroom on a scale of 1 to 5; a score of 1 indicated she never used the type of technology in the classroom and a score of 5 indicated daily use. Based on her answers, it was clear that the teacher was attempting to use technology in the classroom for simple activities, such as Internet research or drill and practice software. However, she was less certain about how to use technology for collaboration, solving real-world problems, or higher-order critical thinking. Although she allowed her students to use technology often, her own understanding of technology was limited so she doubted her ability to do anything more extensive than having students read texts online, search for information, or watch online videos. Based on the LoTi survey, I determined that the teacher was at a LoTi Level 2 Exploration. She had moved beyond using technology for direct instruction but most student technology use was focused on lower-level thinking skills. Similarly, the second survey assessed the teacher’s adopter level. According to Everett Rodger’s “Diffusions of Innovations” (Orr, 2003), I determined that the teacher fell into the Late Majority adopter level. Although she had a positive disposition toward technology, she was cautious about implementation because she wanted to fully understand the tool before using it with students.
I used the needs assessment to inform my technology-coaching plan for my teacher colleague. I decided to familiarize her with simple to use tools to increase her confidence with technology. I also chose tools that addressed higher-order tasks, such as collaboration and critical thinking, in order to show her ways that students can use tools for student-centered learning problems. The Peer Coaching model prescribed by ISTE (2011) consisted of setting specific goals, preparing, implementing activities and then reflecting on practice. I allowed the teacher to set her own technology-use goals, which made her even more receptive to the technology coaching. I also allowed her to experience the technology as both the student and the teacher so that when she used the technology in the classroom, she could identify with her students.
Completing the Individual Teacher Technology Assessment definitely reminded me of the importance of focused and individualized professional learning. Knight (2007) suggests that the one-time-workshop professional learning model is wholly ineffective, results in minimal knowledge, and leads to very little implementation. On the contrary, smaller-scale technology coaching tailored to a learner’s adopter level and technology needs is more effective and leads to real changes in technology usage. In order to improve this artifact to be used as a model for conducting a needs assessment, I would suggest including some of the teacher’s actual words from the interview I conducted with her. I think that sharing her actual words, rather than my interpretation of her words, would allow others to more easily see why I assigned the specific LoTi level and adopter type.
The Individual Teacher Technology Assessment contributes to faculty development since it ensures professional learning sessions actually lead to learning. Assessing a teacher’s technology needs allows a technology coach to identify and employ a coaching model that emphasizes collaboration, mutual respect and a partnership approach. When these characteristics are present, the teacher finds professional learning more effective. Using the same survey after technology coaching should indicate increased LoTi levels.
ISTE. (2011) Technology, Coaching and Community, Power Partners for Improved Professional Development in Primary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from http://www.instructionalcoach.org/images/downloads/ISTE_Whitepaper_June_Final_Edi ts.pdf
Knight, J. (2007). Instructional Coaching: A Partnership Approach to Improving Instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
LoTi ® Framework (2013). LoTi ® Framework. Retrieved from http://loticonnection.cachefly.net/global_documents/LoTi_Framework_Sniff_Test.pdf
Orr, G. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, by Everett Rodgers, (1995). Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/Diffusion%20of%20Innovations.htm
The “Individual Teacher Technology Assessment” is a narrative describing my evaluation of a colleague’s technology implementation level. I used multiple data sources, including an interview and observations, to assess the LoTi (2013) of an English teacher at my school and then proposed a model for technology-related professional learning addressing the identified needs. I completed this project as part of the requirements for ITEC 7460 Professional Learning and Technology Innovation. The needs assessment led to 5 one-to-one technology-coaching sessions with the teacher; these coaching sessions are outlined in Field Experience Log #1 for ITEC 7460. Through this experience, the teacher gained familiarity with and confidence in implementing new technology tools in her classroom, and I was able to practice several technology coaching techniques.
To complete this artifact, I first conducted a needs assessment to determine the strengths and weaknesses of my teacher colleague. I created two surveys, the first of which assessed her LoTi (Level of Technology Integration Level). The teacher ranked each statement related to technology use in her classroom on a scale of 1 to 5; a score of 1 indicated she never used the type of technology in the classroom and a score of 5 indicated daily use. Based on her answers, it was clear that the teacher was attempting to use technology in the classroom for simple activities, such as Internet research or drill and practice software. However, she was less certain about how to use technology for collaboration, solving real-world problems, or higher-order critical thinking. Although she allowed her students to use technology often, her own understanding of technology was limited so she doubted her ability to do anything more extensive than having students read texts online, search for information, or watch online videos. Based on the LoTi survey, I determined that the teacher was at a LoTi Level 2 Exploration. She had moved beyond using technology for direct instruction but most student technology use was focused on lower-level thinking skills. Similarly, the second survey assessed the teacher’s adopter level. According to Everett Rodger’s “Diffusions of Innovations” (Orr, 2003), I determined that the teacher fell into the Late Majority adopter level. Although she had a positive disposition toward technology, she was cautious about implementation because she wanted to fully understand the tool before using it with students.
I used the needs assessment to inform my technology-coaching plan for my teacher colleague. I decided to familiarize her with simple to use tools to increase her confidence with technology. I also chose tools that addressed higher-order tasks, such as collaboration and critical thinking, in order to show her ways that students can use tools for student-centered learning problems. The Peer Coaching model prescribed by ISTE (2011) consisted of setting specific goals, preparing, implementing activities and then reflecting on practice. I allowed the teacher to set her own technology-use goals, which made her even more receptive to the technology coaching. I also allowed her to experience the technology as both the student and the teacher so that when she used the technology in the classroom, she could identify with her students.
Completing the Individual Teacher Technology Assessment definitely reminded me of the importance of focused and individualized professional learning. Knight (2007) suggests that the one-time-workshop professional learning model is wholly ineffective, results in minimal knowledge, and leads to very little implementation. On the contrary, smaller-scale technology coaching tailored to a learner’s adopter level and technology needs is more effective and leads to real changes in technology usage. In order to improve this artifact to be used as a model for conducting a needs assessment, I would suggest including some of the teacher’s actual words from the interview I conducted with her. I think that sharing her actual words, rather than my interpretation of her words, would allow others to more easily see why I assigned the specific LoTi level and adopter type.
The Individual Teacher Technology Assessment contributes to faculty development since it ensures professional learning sessions actually lead to learning. Assessing a teacher’s technology needs allows a technology coach to identify and employ a coaching model that emphasizes collaboration, mutual respect and a partnership approach. When these characteristics are present, the teacher finds professional learning more effective. Using the same survey after technology coaching should indicate increased LoTi levels.
ISTE. (2011) Technology, Coaching and Community, Power Partners for Improved Professional Development in Primary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from http://www.instructionalcoach.org/images/downloads/ISTE_Whitepaper_June_Final_Edi ts.pdf
Knight, J. (2007). Instructional Coaching: A Partnership Approach to Improving Instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
LoTi ® Framework (2013). LoTi ® Framework. Retrieved from http://loticonnection.cachefly.net/global_documents/LoTi_Framework_Sniff_Test.pdf
Orr, G. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, by Everett Rodgers, (1995). Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/Diffusion%20of%20Innovations.htm