Standard 4: See a Need, Fill a Need! (Part 1)
In this five-part series, I’ll talk about some of the things I’m taking away from my summer seminar on teacher education.
Throughout the course, we learned what teacher education is, reviewed the Association of Teacher Educators (ATE) Teacher Educator Standards and other focal areas, and read about key principles of teacher education.
Here is the link to the Teacher Educator Standards (3rd Edition).
Across these entries, I’ll share my understanding of these areas, include and explain a representative image, discuss several readings that deepen my understanding, and connect what I’ve learned to my future work. Along the way, you’ll notice shifts in my thinking as I type out these posts.
For this first entry, I’ll focus on ATE Standard 4: Technology and Innovation.
This standard is an interesting one because when we think about teachers and education, our minds usually don’t immediately jump to the use of technology or sparking innovation.
Instead, we probably think about how schools and classrooms are portrayed in media, or we may reflect on our own experiences as students.
But technology, in this case digital technology, is heavily embedded in our education system. It’s everywhere, from online grading platforms and classwork projected onto big screens to YouTube videos, Khan Academy, and Kahoot!
In this standard, teacher educators are expected to know how to use digital tools and platforms to prepare and guide teachers, colleagues, and community members.
But there’s more to it than that.
Not only do they need to keep up with the latest and greatest technologies or understand how to use them. Teacher educators also need to understand when and why to use them.
Needs Vs. Wants
There is an innate attraction to technology that drives its use. Technology can make our lives easier or more efficient, and often that’s at the center of its purpose.
At the same time, a tension arises when we begin blurring the line between using technology for our “needs” and our “wants.”
Do teachers want digital technology? Without a doubt. In fact, teachers can benefit from exploring new digital tools to become more responsive to their students.
But do teachers need digital technology? It’s not that simple.
There is a difference between using a tool out of accessibility versus using it for a purpose or a need.
Falloon (2020) distinguished between digital literacy and digital competence. Teacher education has traditionally focused on developing students’ digital literacy by teaching them how to use technologies. But digital competence goes beyond that and includes making informed decisions about which technologies best meet particular needs.
So now the question shifts from “Can I use this tool?” to “Why should I use this tool?”
And that is what I think Standard 4 begins to capture at its core. At first glance, teacher educators are expected to gain familiarity with a range of technologies, develop their assigned purposes, and cultivate that with others as well.
“See a Need, Fill a Need!”
At first, I could’ve gone with a toolbox to represent my understanding of this standard. I kept saying “tools” a lot.
But I think using a toolkit doesn’t represent the nuance of this standard because there are two ways to interpret it:
What does the tool do, and how can I use it?
What do I need and which tool can I use?
Instead, I chose this image from the animated film Robots (2005). In the movie, Rodney Copperbottom (the blue robot in the center) is inspired to become an inventor by Bigweld (the round robot on the right). Bigweld keeps saying a phrase that constantly reverberates throughout the movie: “See a need, fill a need!”
That phrase really captures my actual interpretation of Standard 4. Earlier I said that teacher educators should explore digital tools and then decide how to use them.
Rather, I think its reversal is more important. We should start by seeing what we need, and deciding how to fulfill them. And that’s if we even need to use technology as a solution.
“See a need, fill a need!”
Not Every Upgrade Is Needed
Again, Falloon (2020) was helpful in arguing the importance of digital competence. That distinction is important because it adds the “whys” to the “hows” of digital technology in the classroom, and assesses whether a tool is actually “fit for purpose” before its integration.
Kaminskienė et al. (2022) add another layer to my understanding by explaining why digital competence is important. The authors found that intervention studies showed positive effects on student motivation and learning, but large-scale studies have shown mixed results. Some found no relationship or even a negative one between the frequency of technology use and student achievement.
This is important because it suggests a difference in how technology is implemented. So, while Falloon argues that teachers should develop professional judgment in the use of technology, Kaminskienė et al. show that this absence of informed decisions can negatively impact students.
So, a “shotgun approach” is not viable.
Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe. Catch AI By the Toe.
Ultimately, generative AI is why I wanted to write about this standard. AI fascinates me because of its unforeseen potential to transform schools, but there is still so much we don’t understand. Watching teachers, schools, districts, and governments respond from the front lines is surreal.
But AI also complicates Standard 4. While the standards expect teacher educators to uphold the ethical responsibilities of technology, laws, regulations, and school policies are often broad and continue to evolve.
In 2024, Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) published guidance for educators. State Superintendent Chris Reykdal noted that “the world of AI is evolving at lightning speed” (OSPI, 2024).
You can feel the uncertainty when you read Seattle Public Schools’ six-page Artificial Intelligence Handbook (Seattle Public Schools, n.d.) and Bellevue School District’s AI policy, which is just a few scrolls (Bellevue School District, 2025). This goes to show how much remains open to interpretation.
Why is this important? The lack of stringent guidelines may give us an opportunity to watch educators exercise their professional judgment.
It feels like policymakers are walking on eggshells, but educators still have to make decisions in the end. Digital competence requires them to decide when AI supports their thinking and when it starts to replace it.
We will see in time…
It’s the Future!
In more ways than one, my understanding of technology and innovation has been heavily shaped by many authors. I used to think that the more technology, the better and that schools need to “get with the times.”
But simply awareness is not enough. Exploring digital technology is still important, but it also doesn’t mean that every tool will have a place in the classroom.
Whether I return as a teacher or in another role in the field, I now understand that technology and innovation require more depth in professional development.
I argue that digital tools are not necessarily the starting point. Rather, it should be the problem of practice. What do the teachers and students need, and which technologies, if any, can help with that?
I don’t think my role is to push teachers to use more or less technology. Again, exploration is important, but identifying the need and cultivating their professional judgment, or digital competence, are more important.
Teachers, colleagues, community members, and even students need the ability to explain and defend their decisions. Technology will continue to change, but their judgment can remain.
Leading profession development sessions, sending home letters with information about AI, or even conducting a lesson with students on technology are several ways to visibilize that distinction between want and need.
Develop a broad toolbox, start with a purpose, and choose the tool that fits the job.
“See a need, fill a need!”
References
Bellevue School District. (2025, August 13). 2022.2P: Acceptable use of artificial intelligence (AI). https://www.bsd405.org/about-us/school-board/policies-and-procedures/policy-and-procedure-details/~board/policies-procedures/post/procedure-20222p-acceptable-use-of-artificial-intelligence-ai
Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 2449–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4
IMDb. (n.d.). Mel Brooks as Bigweld—Robots (2005). Retrieved August 17, 2026, from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358082/characters/nm0000316/
Kaminskienė, L., Järvelä, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2022). How does technology challenge teacher education? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19, Article 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00375-1
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2024, January 18). Superintendent Reykdal introduces guidance for integration of human-centered AI in Washington’s public schools. https://ospi.k12.wa.us/about-ospi/news-center/news-releases/superintendent-reykdal-introduces-guidance-integration-human-centered-ai-washingtons-public-schools
Seattle Public Schools. (n.d.). Artificial intelligence handbook. https://www.seattleschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AI-Handbook-ADA.pdf
