Running Head: Individual Teacher Technology Assessment 1

Individual Teacher Technology Assessment Narrative

Amber Mitchell

PL & Technology Innovation (ITEC 7460)

Kennesaw State University

Running Head: Individual Teacher Technology Assessment 2

Mrs. Patterson is a third grade teacher at Center Elementary. I had her complete two

technology surveys (LoTi and Adopter). These surveys were used to target Mrs. Patterson’s

comfort level with implementing technology inside the classroom and how she feels about

adopting new innovations. Mrs. Patterson has been teaching for fifteen years. She has been a

teacher at CES for ten of those fifteen years. Inside her classroom she is equipped with a

SmartBoard, six student computers, and one teacher computer. All grade levels at CES have one

laptop cart filled with twenty-four Chromebooks. Mrs. Patterson has access to this cart if she

checks the cart out before the other third grade teachers. Additionally, students are scheduled to

have media or lab resource for at least 40 minutes per week.

Levels of Technology and Change

On the Levels of Technology (LoTi) Survey, Mrs. Patterson documented that she has

“below basic” knowledge and skills in technology. When asked to elaborate, she stated, “I am

not tech savy. It is hard for me to find my way through infinite campus and I have been working

with it for years. (A.Mitchell, personal communication,March, 2017). Ms. Patterson shared that

technology use in her classroom was not effectively integrated into her lessons. When questioned

about how she would like to see technology infused into her classroom if given adequate time

and tools, Mrs. Patterson went on to say that she would just like to know some of the basics that

other teachers use such as her SmartBoard interactions and Google. Her students use the

programs that the district has paid for such as IXL and iRead. She believes that these tools give

baseline data for her to look at but she does not think it delivers the content as effective as she

does. However, she does like that reports are provided and instruction is adjusted within most of

the online programs. She understands that this is the 21st century and her students will be tested

online this year so she has been letting them use the ChromeBooks to type. The LoTi

Running Head: Individual Teacher Technology Assessment 3

questionnaire results showed that Mrs. Patterson’s practices most likely fall within a LoTi Level

1. At this level the teacher uses direct instruction and is generally the solitary user of technology,

especially as it relates to delivery enhancements (LoTI Framework, 2011).

Mrs. Patterson was also given the Adopter Survey to answer questions related to how she

would go about embracing change to incorporate the use of a new innovation. The results

showed that Mrs. Patterson does not adapt to change very well. She was recently asked to pilot a

web tool called “Digital Passport” and she turned it away. She does not enjoy technology

trainings and is not one to sign up for them. She is easily frustrated when new innovations are

introduced. Her survey results showed that she is usually the last person to try any new

technology. As a result, I would conclude that Mrs. Patterson could potentially identify as either

an Late Majority or Laggard depending upon the context. According to The 5 Stages of

Technology Adoption, “A Late Majority is an individual who approaches an innovation with a

high degree of skepticism and after the majority of society has adopted the innovation. Laggards

are individuals who are the last to adopt an innovation. Unlike some of the previous categories,

individuals in this category show little to no opinion leadership. These individuals typically have

an aversion to change-agents and tend to be advanced in age. Laggards typically tend to be

focused on “traditions”. This is evident in Mrs. Pattersons results because she is usually the last

to adopt new innovations and she is always skeptical of trying a new innovation. I believe Mrs.

Patterson fits between these two categories.

Perspective of Technology

Being that Mrs. Patterson is considered to be a Late Majority/Laggard her perspective of

technology differs from many teachers in our school. Mrs. Patterson has been teaching for many

Running Head: Individual Teacher Technology Assessment 4

years and is a traditional teacher. She does not like change at all. Her view on technology is that

“students cannot learn from a computer”. (A. Mitchell, personal communication, March, 2017).

She delivers her lessons mostly from a basic powerpoint each day and with a few videos. I

explained to her that this is technology she is using. She did not view basic powerpoint and short

videos as technology. I assured her it was and that I feel I could boost her LoTi level with just a

few simple adaptations. She noted, “I guess if the technology that I use would benefit my

students then maybe I would be willing to try it but only if I am properly trained on the new

technology myself” (A. Mitchell, personal communication, March, 2017). She feels that our

school is not properly equipped with enough technology to fulfil what our administration is

asking for. She stated that she is often scared of the new technology she hears about from her co-

workers. She feels she has no time to research or plan for any new implementation of

technology. She also worries for the safety of the students when they use all the newest versions

of technology. She has been asked to pilot new web tools but her answer has always been no.

She likes to use manipulatives and worksheets when teaching.

Training Needs and Coaching

In our main discussion, I asked Mrs. Patterson if she would allow me to peer coach her

on using some new technology in her classroom. At first, she hesitated but I assured her if she

would give me the chance to show her how engaging and meaningful learning really is through

technology, that her perspective on technology could possibly change. (A. Mitchell, personal

communication, March, 2017). Mrs. Patterson agreed to let me coach her every Monday for 1

hour after school. I think she is excited and nervous at the same time to learn about new

technology.

Running Head: Individual Teacher Technology Assessment 5

When asked what her greatest needs for coaching were, Mrs. Patterson shared that she

would like to take it slow and learn more about how she can use her SmartBoard in her lessons.

She wants to learn how to create interactive games and powerpoints with her SmartBoard. I plan

to take it slow with her technology integration. I do not want to overwhelm her with all the

different ways she can integrate technology. I first want to show Mrs. Patterson a lesson that I

have created through the SmartBoard to give her a visual of what she can do. I plan to show her

all the different tools her SmartBoard has. From there we will collaboratively create interactive

SmartBoard lessons using the internet to find different sources that relate to her content. About 2

weeks after we have created and played with the tools in the SmartBoard, I will ask Mrs.

Patterson to create one by herself before our next coaching session.

When Mrs. Patterson is comfortable with using her SmartBoard and creating lessons

independently, I will ask Mr. Bennett (principal of CES) if he would allow myself and Mrs.

Patterson to share our peer coaching experience with the faculty of CES during one of our whole

faculty meetings. Mrs. Patterson will share what she has learned through the coaching sessions

and she will proudly show our faculty one of the interactive SmartBoard lessons she has created.

Running Head: Individual Teacher Technology Assessment 6

Running Head: Individual Teacher Technology Assessment 7

Running Head: Individual Teacher Technology Assessment 8

Running Head: Individual Teacher Technology Assessment 9

Running Head: Individual Teacher Technology Assessment 10

Running Head: Individual Teacher Technology Assessment 11

References

A.Mitchell, personal communication, March, 2017.

Running Head: Individual Teacher Technology Assessment 12

Beglau, M., Hare, J. C., Foltos, L., Gann, K., James, J., Jobe, H., ... & Smith, B. (2011).

Technology, coaching, and community. In ISTE, An ISTE White Paper, Special Conference

Release.

C. (n.d.). The 5 Stages of Technology Adoption. Retrieved March 03, 2017, from

https://ondigitalmarketing.com/learn/odm/foundations/5-customer-segments-technology-

adoption/