{"id":8638,"date":"2019-07-16T15:25:39","date_gmt":"2019-07-16T15:25:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2019-12-11T16:24:58","modified_gmt":"2019-12-11T16:24:58","slug":"transforming-mobile-learning-and-digital-pedagogies-an-investigation-of-a-customized-professional-development-program-for-teachers-in-a-hospital-school","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-19\/issue-3-19\/general\/transforming-mobile-learning-and-digital-pedagogies-an-investigation-of-a-customized-professional-development-program-for-teachers-in-a-hospital-school","title":{"rendered":"Transforming Mobile Learning and Digital Pedagogies: An Investigation of a Customized Professional Development Program for Teachers in a Hospital School"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the unique setting\nof a school located in a hospital, hospitalized students must be\nprovided with inclusive educational opportunities and learning initiatives equivalent\nto their regular school peers. In part, these opportunities facilitate a successful transition back to their regular\nschool (Franck,\nGay, & Rubin, 2013). Hospital teachers\nprovide learning experiences typical of a traditional classroom environment\ntogether with bedside instruction and distance learning. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mobile technologies in the hospital school, including tablets, smartphones, and online learning and teaching applications (apps), enable teachers to produce tasks that replicate those experienced in the students\u2019 regular school. Students can, thus, experience collaboration and communication tools to maintain support as they transition from hospital, to home, and back to school. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the hospital school where this study was located, transformational change with mobile technologies was undertaken for three purposes (McCarthy, Maor, & McConney, 2017):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Improving\nteachers\u2019 technological skills, such as using a mobile device to download education\napps from the app store; store, share, and print files.<\/li>
  2. Integrating\nmobile technologies in teaching, including accessing digital resources from the\nstudent\u2019s regular school learning system; engaging in projects that utilize\nproductivity and creativity applications.<\/li>
  3. Supporting children\u2019s learning while in the\nhospital; for example, collaborating with a student\u2019s regular classroom and\nteacher using a video chat application like Skype to ensure continuity of\nlearning and connection to peers and the school.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    In the first phase of this\ninitiative, we identified and previously\nreported significant obstacles to teacher preparedness\nto use mobile technologies in this special learning environment, including lack of Wi-Fi\naccessibility due to hospital safety policies (McCarthy\net al.,\n2017). The current study investigated the implementation and outcomes of\na customized professional development (PD) program, informed by hospital school\nteacher participant needs, to achieve those three outcomes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This article reports on an examination of changes in hospital school teachers\u2019 views in answer to the following research question: To what extent were hospital school teachers\u2019 technological, pedagogical, and personal needs for effective use of mobile technology in a hospital school met following participation in a customized PD program?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The PD program was developed to address hospital teachers\u2019 learning needs related to mobile technologies and digital pedagogies (McCarthy et al.,\n2017). Table 1 lists the three\nmain categories of teachers\u2019 needs: technological, pedagogical, and personal\nsupport. Nine subcategories of needs were further suggested using an iterative process\nfor analyzing extensive teacher interview data.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Table 1<\/strong>
    Categories and Subcategories of Hospital School Teachers\u2019 Needs (McCarthy et al., 2017)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t
    Technology Needs<\/strong><\/th>\u00a0<\/strong>Pedagogical Needs<\/strong><\/th>Personal Support Needs<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Personal use, confidence and time <\/td>Integrating mobile technologies into teaching and learning <\/td>\u00a0Coaching
    \n \u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Access and IT support
    \n \u00a0<\/td>    		Engaging students, and sustaining their interest<\/td> Peer collaboration
    \n \u00a0 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Tips and tricks<\/td>Understanding and successfully navigating the unique pedagogical context of a hospital [as a site for teaching and learning]<\/td>Communication at home and school<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n

    Literature Review<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    An ample\nliterature confirms that well-designed and implemented teacher PD positively\ninfluences teachers\u2019 practice, and by extension, improves student learning (Botha, Batchelor, Traxler, de\nWaard, & Herselman,\n2012; Gutierez & Kim, 2017; Hattie &\nAnderman, 2013; Jensen, Hunter, Sonnemann, & Cooper, 2014; Kools & Stoll, 2016; Saunders,\n2014). Furthermore, there seems to be wide agreement in the literature that the\nPD of teachers is\na crucial element in supporting change to enhance learning through mobile and\ndigital technologies (Cavanaugh, Kelley, & McCarthy, 2018; Liu, Ritzhaupt,\nDawson, & Barron, 2017; Tondeur, Forkosh-Baruch, Prestridge, Albion, &\nEdirisinghe, 2016). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Contextual barriers exist, however, to the\nuptake and integration of mobile technologies in teaching, such as lack of\ntime, access to technologies, or resources (Kopcha, 2013; McCarthy et al., 2017). Barriers also exist at the individual level, including\nfear of change or lack of vision (Kopcha, 2013; Van der Klink, Kools, Avissar,\nWhite, & Sakata, 2017). Dimmock\u2019s (2016) research built on Lawrence\nStenhouse\u2019s work (1975), which argued that to address challenges, schools need\ncoherent, holistic frameworks that support teachers\u2019 and students\u2019 acquiring\nknowledge to enable informed decisions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The potential for positive change through efforts to introduce reform in teachers\u2019 technological practices, however, is in danger of being unfulfilled if professional learning fails to inspire teachers to integrate mobile and emerging technologies in their pedagogical practice (Cavanaugh, Maor, & McCarthy, 2018; Kraft & Blazar, 2017). Clinging to familiar but outdated practices can alienate students ready to learn in a technologically rich world, where emerging technologies are ubiquitous outside the classroom (Magen-Nagar & Steinberger, 2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A challenge facing education\nsystems, therefore, is understanding how teachers change from \u201cnonusers of\ntechnologies to becoming transformative teachers with technology\u201d (Tarling\n& Ng\u2019ambi, 2016, p. 554). For hospital teachers, knowledge development can\nbe impacted by contextual factors (Phillips, 2017) as well as common barriers to\nsustaining PD identified by Tondeur et al. (2016), including inadequate\ninfrastructure and lack of use of proven teacher knowledge frameworks like technology,\npedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) for technology integration (Mishra\n& Koehler, 2006).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Educational Frameworks<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Use and acceptance of\neducational frameworks is increasing to provide authoritative, evidence-informed\nresearch in guiding teachers and providing resources to assist teachers as they\nincrease confidence in the use of technologies (Cavanaugh, Hargis, Kamali,\n& Soto, 2013; Dimmock, 2016; Ha\u00dfler, Major, & Hennessy, 2016; McCarthy\net al., 2017). Educational models with a focus on integrating technology with\npedagogy include TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) and 21st-century skills (Kereluik, Mishra, Fahnoe, & Terry, 2013; Mishra & Kereluik, 2011). Each framework has a role in clarifying and supporting\nthe design, implementation, and evaluation of professional learning for\neffective use of mobile technology in education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In a recent review of research, TPACK was described as \u201cinterdependent, situated knowledge that is needed to integrate the use of digital tools and resources effectively in curriculum-based teaching\u201d (Harris, Phillips, Koehler, & Rosenberg, 2017, p. i). An abundance of research examines how TPACK can support teachers\u2019 development since Shulman\u2019s (1986) research into teacher assessment conceptualized pedagogical content knowledge (PCK; see also Harris et al., 2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    PCK was developed during a period of laying the foundation for teaching\nreform by identifying \u201cdistinctive bodies of knowledge for teaching\u201d (Shulman,\n1987, p. 8) and emphasizing \u201cteaching as comprehension and reasoning,\ntransformation and reflection\u201d (p. 13). This foundation has remained relevant\nwith the addition of technological knowledge (TK) to the framework in response\nto educational technology research (e.g., Koehler & Mishra, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Further, substantial research has examined ways to apply TPACK,\nincluding a recent study by Tondeur, Scherer, Siddiq, and Baran (2017)\ninvestigating preservice teacher technology profiles and the implication of\nthese for institutions. TPACK assessment used as a diagnostic tool provides\nevidence of gaps in teacher preparedness when designing PD for the integration of technology and\npedagogy, and reveals the requirement for innovation in digital pedagogies for\nteaching (\u00c7oklar & \u00d6zbek, 2017; McCarthy\net al., 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    TPACK is a reliable framework for identifying the areas of teachers\u2019 practice requirimg support through PD (Voogt, Fisser, Pareja Roblin, Tondeur, & van Braak, 2012). Furthermore, TPACK has \u201cemerged as a representation of the knowledge required to use technology in an educational setting in ways that are contextually authentic and pedagogically appropriate\u201d (Abbitt, 2011, p. 281). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Power (2018) suggested that the\nTPACK framework can be used as a resource to assess teachers\u2019 knowledge when\ndeveloping teacher PD, enhancing the effectiveness of instructional design. The framework provides\na vocabulary that can be referenced and, through reflection, used to express\nhow practice is transformed (Joo, Park, & Lim, 2018; Koh,\n2018; Koh,\nChai, Wong, & Hong, 2015). Koh (2018) responded to the criticism of the\nTPACK framework \u201cas being limited in guiding teachers\u2019 lesson design\u201d (p. 14)\nby suggesting a need to incorporate TPACK design scaffolds to improve the\nprescriptive value of TPACK with respect to teachers\u2019 pedagogical change. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In preparing teachers for the 21st-century classroom, examples of\ntypical skills and competencies required are critical thinking and problem\nsolving, collaboration and communication, digital literacy, citizenship, student\nleadership, creativity, and imagination (Fontanilla, 2016; van Laar, van Deursen, van Dijk, &\nde Haan, 2017; Voogt & Pareja Roblin, 2012). These 21st-century\nskills are also needed by students to participate in a knowledge-based\nworkforce (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2019; International\nSociety for Technology in Education, 2019; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and\nDevelopment, 2018;\nPeccarelli, 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"Figure
    Figure 1. Reprinted from \u201cWhat Knowledge Is of Most Worth: Teacher Knowledge for 21st Century Learning,\u201d by K. Kereluik, P. Mishra, C. Fahnoe, & L. Terry, 2013, Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education<\/em>, 29<\/em>, 130. Copyright 2013 by International Society for Technology in Education. Reprinted with permission. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    When designing PD for teachers, it was recognized that the\nframework provided by 21st-century skills scaffolds learning, which \u201censures that all students benefit from\nlearning about and working with traditional, contemporary and emerging\ntechnologies that shape the world in which we live\u201d (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting\nAuthority, 2019, para. 3). In PD, 21st-century skills helped teachers to understand and appreciate\nwhat students required and facilitated alignment with curriculum requirements and\ncapabilities expected for students. In other words, the 21st-century skills framework supplements<\/em> TPACK, acting as a design scaffold\n(Koh, 2018) using terminology<\/em> that\nnames and describes current and expected teacher technology needs (van Laar et\nal., 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    PD Design<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The need to create adequate opportunities for PD\nbegins with recognizing teachers\u2019 perceptions of the barriers to technology\nintegration (Kopcha, 2013) and an understanding that not all teachers are\ncomfortable with or ready to implement mobile learning successfully into their\nteaching and administration (Melhuish & Falloon, 2010). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    PD initiatives often\nattempt to convince participants of the need for change, providing a rational\nargument and the tools to support change (Bryk, 2015; Cavanaugh et al., 2018).\nHowever, understanding teachers\u2019 existing pedagogical practices, their needs, and\nhow they change are also critical in effecting sustainable change (Tarling\n& Ng\u2019ambi, 2016). <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A responsibility of technology PD providers is to effectively identify teachers\u2019 needs and tailor PD to meet those needs, bringing about sustainable, effective change. Barrett-Greenly (2013) and Hutchison and Woodward\u2019s (2018) research both demonstrated that participation in PD increased teachers\u2019 confidence and skills in using mobile technology and educational applications for instructional purposes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Additionally, Gutierez and Kim (2017) highlighted the\nimportance of context as it relates to teachers interpreting their school\nculture within a local context to support pedagogical change (Glahn, 2016). Further, Spiteri\nand Rundgren (2018) described how teachers\u2019 knowledge, attitudes, and skills can influence school\nculture. Unger and\nTracey (2013) recommended that technology PD be relevant to teachers\u2019\nresponsibilities and learning be developed through activities created for\nspecific contexts and take advantage of the mobility of teachers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Hutchison and\nWoodward (2018) further developed a model of technology-focused PD to examine\nteachers\u2019 proficiency with technology integration and the impact on students\u2019\ntechnology literacy in the classroom. Their results indicated that because of\nthe technology-focused PD teachers were \u201cbetter prepared to envision their\nroles in the classroom and their purposes for integrating technology\u201d (p. 2)\nand students performed better on digital literacy assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Leadership support of\nnot only teachers but of the change process is crucial as leaders enable digital\ninnovation and transformation (Roth & Price, 2016). Additionally, teachers\nhave a central role to play in their own professional learning as experts in\ntheir profession, with the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of their\nteaching through reflective practice, self-audits, and recognition of teachers\u2019\nperceptions of what PD is most beneficial (Marzano, 2017; Unger & Tracey,\n2013; Wells, 2014). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Kools and Stoll\n(2016) recommended that teaching staff be engaged in identifying aims and\npriorities for their own learning. Improving students\u2019 learning through\nreflective practice and collaboration as a supportive group of teachers (Lave & Wenger, 1991) produces\na professional learning community with the capacity to adapt to change (Cavanaugh,\nKelley,  et al., 2018; Kools & Stoll,\n2016). Furthermore, when designing programs for PD, providing opportunities for\nreflective practice can facilitate new understandings to effect a change in\npractice (Sch\u00f6n, 1983).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    PD supported by\nexperts that targets teachers\u2019 needs aligns with a \u201csystems-based mentoring model\nfor technology integration\u201d (Kopcha, 2010, p. 175). A mentor may be able to\nhelp teachers overcome barriers to technology integration by modeling\ntechnology using the resources available at the school and facilitating a culture\nof a teacher-directed community to sustain their ongoing use of mobile\ntechnologies (Cavanaugh, Kelley et al., 2018; Kopcha, 2010). This mentoring or\ncoaching model for sustaining technology integration supports Tarling and\nNg\u2019ambi\u2019s (2016) premise that transformative pedagogies engage the learner in\nanalyzing and evaluating their new knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    To address the\nfast pace of sustainable technology integration, an effective pedagogical PD program\nmust be developed that identifies teachers\u2019 needs, acknowledges context and\nsituation, and facilitates a teacher community of practice. This study attempted\nto increase our understanding of how teachers\u2019 needs for effective use of\nmobile technology can be identified for customized PD design. Additionally,\nthis study examined the role and impact of a technology coach in delivering positive\noutcomes for teacher\u2019s participating in customized PD.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Methodology<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Research\nContext <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    This\nresearch was conducted in a hospital school where teachers face the challenge\nof providing learning experiences to unwell students of mixed ages in various\nlocations, while maintaining partnerships with parents, regular schools, health\nprofessionals, and colleagues (McCarthy et al., 2017). The hospital\nschool in this study operates at 20 government-owned sites across one Australian\nstate, led by one principal based at the largest hospital site (School of\nSpecial Education Needs, 2019).\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The hospital school provides 60 teaching and\nliaison programs that support students unable to participate in their regular\nschool program, in urban and rural settings, including a children\u2019s hospital\nfrom where the school is managed. Staff work in interdisciplinary teams to\nensure that students\u2019 needs can be supported (School of Special Education\nNeeds, 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The school recently introduced its teachers and students (more than 5,500 per year) to a new strategic plan, which included upgraded information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure, such as improved Wi-Fi access and provision of mobile devices and digital resources in an effort to enhance teaching and learning. In addition, a PD program was implemented to support needed change and improvement with mobile technologies and relevant digital pedagogies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The research setting\nincluded the hospital classrooms, students\u2019 hospital beds, and supporting\nrecuperation facilities. The hospital school operates four terms of 10 weeks each\nover the course of the school year, mirroring the calendar of regular schools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We chose the pseudonym Bridge\nHospital School (BHS) to represent the research site and to de-identify the\nlocation of this study. \u201cBridge\u201d reflects the role hospital teachers\nperform in helping students bridge the gaps they encounter between hospital,\nhome, and their regular schools (McCarthy et al., 2017). BHS operates under the charter of\nchildren\u2019s and young people\u2019s rights in healthcare services in Australia, which\nincludes the right for every student \u201cto participate in education, play,\ncreative activities and recreation, even if this is difficult due to their\nillness or disability\u201d (Children\u2019s Hospitals Australasia, 2017, p. 17). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ethics approval\nwas obtained from relevant authorities (i.e., the university ethics board and\nstate Department of Education) prior to starting the study. This approval was\nparticularly important due to the confidential nature of information held in\nthe hospital setting. Written consent for this research was obtained from the\nhospital school principal and teacher participants, who were assured\nconfidentiality and that withdrawal from the study could occur at any time\nwithout consequence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We expected that some\nteachers who began the research process would not continue due to changes in\ncircumstances. Additionally, the school was de-identified to further\nsafeguard participants and hospitalized students. At this stage of the research, students were not directly\ninvolved. Therefore, consent from students and caregivers was not required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Participants<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    BHS employs 75 educators\nwho are highly experienced based on teaching tenure and professionalism. They work\nin small collaborative groups supporting specific groups of hospitalized\nstudents and students of different ages and medical requirements. A survey of\nteacher demographics prior to commencement of the study revealed an average of 26\nyears\u2019 teaching experience and an average of 9 years of hospital school experience.\nMost teachers were female (82%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Twenty-nine\nBHS teachers participated in the initial phase of this research to identify hospital\nteacher needs prior to PD\nprogram design and implementation. Twenty-two of those 29 participated in the\npost-PD\ndata collection. The attrition was due to changes in circumstances, including\nlong service leave and illness. To facilitate participation in the unique\nhospital school environment and tailor PD specifically to teachers\u2019 needs and those of their\nlearner groups, BHS and the researchers ensured that teachers were provided\nadditional time necessary to be part of this research study. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Limitations<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The hospital school had recently addressed some\nobstacles to teachers\u2019\npreparedness to utilize\nmobile technologies, such as allocation of new mobile devices. However, funding priorities meant that\nnot all teachers had access to a mobile device or the coach at the same time, so the PD needed to be staged over time. Additionally, hospital safety\npolicies resulted in limitations to the use of mobile\ntechnologies by teacher participants anywhere at any time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Hospital school teachers instruct unfamiliar students of varying ages with indeterminate lengths of stay, in varying environments, such as the bedside or a classroom. The diversity of learners and environments has an impact on the PD requirements of each teacher. Therefore, a customized PD program was required that included a mentoring coach who analyzed individual needs and created personalized development plans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Although the teacher\nparticipant sample could be considered small, hospital school systems are\ninherently small. The subject matter expertise of the researchers, teaching experience\nof the participants, and a review of available research relating to teachers,\nmobile learning, and the PD design provided the researchers with confidence to\ngather and analyze data. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Research Design<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    This study\u2019s design leveraged the strengths of\nboth quantitative and qualitative methodologies in a mixed methods approach. Quantitative\ndata were collected using a customized TPACK survey (Archambault & Crippen, 2009). Qualitative\ndata were gathered through researcher-created open-ended survey questions and\nindividual and focus group interviews with participant-teachers (McCarthy et al., 2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The appropriateness and value of mixed method approaches for answering\nmultifaceted research questions in challenging contexts is well recognized (McConney,\nRudd, & Ayers, 2002). Although mixed methods research may not always\nprovide a perfect solution (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), in this study a\nmixed approach gathered the data required to investigate the effectiveness of PD\ntailored to participant teachers\u2019 pedagogical needs for the use of mobile\ntechnologies in a hospital school setting. Purely qualitative or quantitative approaches tend to suffer from the\ninherent limitations associated with each (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019;\nMcConney et al., 2002), and therefore, combining the two approaches provided a more\ncomplete picture that helped us better understand the research problem. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The overall study design\nenabled the identification of pre- and post-PD technology-related pedagogical needs\nof hospital teachers and provided insight about the extent to which tailored PD\nsupported teachers\u2019 construction of needed knowledge and skills in a meaningful\nway (Cresswell, 2012; Ruhalahti,\nKorhonen, & Rasi, 2017). Reflection\nfacilitated by a digital transformation coach provided a deeper understanding\nof the complex world of hospital school teachers and the PD needed to align teachers\u2019 needs with 21st<\/sup>-century skills (Kereluik et al., 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    PD Program Design<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    A PD program was designed\ncollaboratively by university researchers, a digital technology coach, and hospital\nteacher participants. The program was designed to target previously identified pre-PD\ntechnological, pedagogical, and personal needs of hospital school teachers for\neffective use of mobile technology to improve learning. Reflecting on needs and\nexisting TPACK competencies enabled us to identify gaps and develop a customized\nprogram. For example, hospital teachers saw the need to learn how to utilize video\nconferencing applications like Skype (https:\/\/www.skype.com<\/a>) to support students\nwhen recuperating at home or communicating with a student\u2019s regular school\nteacher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Frameworks used to\ninform design<\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>It was important for\nBHS leadership to align its digital transformation strategy to the growing use\nof educational models (Andersen, 2018; Hutchison & Woodward, 2018). TPACK defines domains of teacher\nknowledge and provided BHS leaders with a research-based framework for understanding\nteacher perceptions of content, pedagogy, and technology skills within a\nhospital school teaching\/learning context and guiding how technology can be\nsuccessfully introduced into administration and teaching. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Additionally, the 21st-century skills framework\nwas used to guide the coach when working one-on-one with teachers to identify\nfocus areas such as collaboration and communication needs. The framework\nprovided concrete, actionable skills and terminology described in the curriculum and expressed as\nteachers needs supporting teacher knowledge, as outlined in TPACK.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The role of the digital\ntransformation coach.<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong>Within the PD\nprogram, teachers\nengaged in a coach-facilitated professional learning and reflection process to\nexamine aspects of mobile technologies and digital pedagogies relevant to their\npersonal and teaching needs. The coach is an experienced teacher who had previously\nbeen engaged in digital transformation initiatives and 1:1 iPad programs in\nregular schools. The coach had over 10 years teaching experience, including 7\nyears integrating information technology in teaching. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In addition, the coach is\nan Apple Distinguished Educator (Apple Inc., 2019) with 3 years\u2019 experience as\nthe lead teacher in digital pedagogies at a special needs school supporting\nteachers, parents, and students using mobile devices and apps. The coach was\nappointed on a part-time contract following recommendation and refereed review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The\nrole of iPad as a mobile device. <\/em><\/strong>The proliferation of Apple iPad use in\neducational settings, boosted by digital access, government funding, and\nsupport by the Department of Education procurement process, meant many BHS\nteachers were familiar with the iPad, minimizing the impact of change (Geer, White, Zeegers, Au, &\nBarnes, 2017). Additionally, the large app ecosystem curated for\neducation provided teachers flexibility in choosing apps for their learning\narea, aided by school leadership that provided funding for teachers to purchase\napps. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A practical aspect\nof iPad focus in the hospital school setting was the low costs of the devices, accessibility\nfeatures, long battery life, offline access when in areas without Wi-Fi\nInternet connections, ease of deployment, local support, long warranty, and access\nto training materials provided by the manufacturer (Young, 2016). Research\nsupports the use of the iPad in education as a possible pedagogical \u201cgame\nchanger\u201d (Cochrane, Narayan, &\nOldfield, 2013; Geer et al., 2017; Jahnke, Bergstr\u00f6m, M\u00e5rell-Olsson, H\u00e4ll,\n& Kumar, 2017; Young, 2016). However, the PD program was a necessary stage\nto integrate the use of iPads (or any mobile device) into participants\u2019 pedagogy\n(Hutchison & Woodward, 2018; McCarthy et al., 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    PD Procedure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The following is an outline of how the PD program\nwas designed and implemented (first illustrated in Figure 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"Figure
    Figure 2.<\/strong> Chronological overview of PD procedures. <\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Pre-PD<\/em><\/strong>.\n<\/strong>Previously,\nduring a teacher PD\nday, the hospital school\u2019s leadership announced its commitment to mobile\nlearning supported by a vision and strategic plan. Teachers were invited to\nparticipate in research related to enhancing mobile teaching and learning and\nto attend a workshop to understand participant requirements. Participants were\nintroduced to the coach and the role of the coach was outlined. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    During the workshop,\nTPACK and 21st-century skills frameworks\nwere introduced and a consent form to participate was provided. On completion\nof the consent form, a hyperlink was sent via email to participants instructing\nthem to complete an online pre-PD TPACK survey. Individual and group interviews were\nundertaken to answer the following question: \u201cHow\ndoes using technology impact your pedagogical decisions?\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Participants were also provided\naccess to a mobile device and a range of learning apps at an introductory PD workshop.The findings from this initial phase\nidentified hospital teachers\u2019 professional learning needs (Table 1) and\ninformed the design of the PD program (McCarthy\net al.,\n2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    PD program delivery.<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong>The PD program was\nundertaken in two cycles, each lasting 4 weeks. Cycle 1 focused on technology\nneeds, such as accessing a new iPad, connecting to a wireless network, printing\nand storing files, and incorporated personal support needs, such as learning to\nuse communication applications (including email, chat, Skype, and sharing files\nwith students). Accessibility features within applications to support sight-\nand hearing-impaired students were also shared. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Cycle 2 focused on\npedagogical needs, including working with the coach to identify apps relating\nto curriculum areas such as literacy, 21st-century skills (e.g., collaboration\nand problem solving), and digital textbook resources. Teachers had\nopportunities to observe the coach teaching a class or lesson and team-taught with\nthe coach to consolidate the first cycle of PD by integrating mobile\ntechnologies into their daily teaching.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    During the two cycles of PD, teachers engaged in\none-on-one workshops for 1 hour per week that helped the coach guide\nconversations and align participants\u2019 personal needs and target further PD. Each participant experienced 8 hours of personalized PD. Additionally,\nthe coach assisted collaboration opportunities to enable teachers with shared\ntechnology needs to reflect on their PD, teaching with mobile technology, and\nexperiences teaching in a hospital learning environment. Participants\nalso had access to the coach via phone and email. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Post-PD<\/em>.\n<\/strong>We organized post-PD group interviews at the completion of Cycle 2 and via\nemails invited participants to complete a post-PD TPACK survey. During school-based\nPD days that occurred at the beginning and end of the school term, we\nfacilitated a post-PD teacher interview. Teacher interview questions are included\nin Appendix B<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Instruments<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Pre-PD <\/em><\/strong>and post-PD <\/em><\/strong>TPACK survey<\/em><\/strong>.\n<\/strong>Participating teachers completed pre- and post-PD TPACK surveys\nusing a version modified from Archambault and Crippen\u2019s (2009) instrument. Modification\nwas required to accommodate the context of a hospital school. This instrument\nutilized the TPACK framework assessing knowledge that teachers are typically\nexpected to have. The survey included 49 items and was administered online via\nSurveyGizmo (https:\/\/www.surveygizmo.com<\/a>).\nSeven questions were asked within each knowledge area (Archambault &\nCrippen, 2009) with an additional open-ended question included in each TPACK\nsurvey (Appendix C<\/a>). <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A post-PD TPACK survey was completed by participants at the end of the research period to compare responses with the pre-PD survey to determine any changes in teacher needs and perceptions. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the data from teachers\u2019 TPACK survey responses. Inductive analysis and open coding were used to analyze responses to open-ended questions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Pre-PD and post-PD\n<\/em><\/strong>teacher\ninterview.<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong>Individual interviews\nwere conducted, lasting 30 to 60 minutes, focused on teachers\u2019 perceived needs\nfor mobile technology to support their personal development and their students\nin BHS. The opportunity for teachers to explore how technology was integrated\nwith their pedagogy was an important focus for analysis. Post-PD teacher interviews\ncompared pre- and post-PD\nteacher perceptions of needs for mobile technology support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Pre-PD <\/em><\/strong>and post-PD <\/em><\/strong>focus group interview<\/em><\/strong>.\n<\/strong>Five\nfocus group interviews were conducted with groups of four to five teachers,\neach lasting between 30 and 60 minutes. These pre- and post-PD group interviews were\nconducted during staff PD sessions. The purpose of the focus group interviews was\nto ascertain theneeds, progress,\nand challenges from a collective perspective and to potentially identify particular\nneeds pertaining to these participant-teachers. We developed a list of\nquestions to guide participants; nevertheless, interviews were semistructured,\nallowing flexibility in the scope and sequence of what was discussed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Analysis<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Quantitative data were\ncollected using pre- and post-PD TPACK surveys. The 49 items from the TPACK survey were\nplaced into seven dimensions. All survey items employed a 5-point Likert scale\nwith \u201c5\u201d indicating strong agreement. These data were exported into Microsoft\nExcel for analysis. Qualitative data were gathered via pre- and post-PD individual\nand focus group interviews and open-ended questions on the surveys. A thematic\ncoding approach was used for the analysis of these data, based on TPACK\ncategories. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Descriptive statistical results were tabulated and reported for each subscale of the TPACK framework using all participants. Dependent t<\/em>-tests were then conducted for the 22 participants who completed all measures, including the pre- and post-PD TPACK survey (Table 2). Analysis of patterning of responses and identifying themes in the qualitative data was achieved using NVivo 11 and Microsoft Excel. Themes were coded and refined to reflect terms that described the most consistent type of teacher needs (e.g., peer collaboration). In this way, the first two authors identified three main categories of needs: technology, pedagogical, and personal support. Nine subcategories of teachers\u2019 needs were further established (Table 1). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Two researchers conducted independent iterative and inductive analyses to code transcript excerpts of participant quotes. Categories were determined once 80% agreement for allocation was achieved. Replaying of recorded interview data and reference to accurate transcriptions supported analyses and interpretation of responses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Findings<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Overview<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The purpose of\nthis study was to investigatethe extent\nto which hospital school teachers\u2019 technological, pedagogical, and personal\nneeds for effective use of mobile technology were met following participation\nin a customized pedagogical PD program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The findings demonstrate that teachers\u2019 technological, pedagogical, and personal needs related to effective use of mobile technology in a hospital school underwent substantial change following participation in a PD program that specifically catered to participants\u2019 needs. Data to support this finding included quantitative pre-PD and post-PD TPACK teacher self-assessment perception surveys, qualitative TPACK open-ended questions, individual interviews, and group interviews. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The dependent t<\/em>-tests support the view that the PD program was effective in\nimproving three\naspects of teachers\u2019 knowledge: technological content knowledge (TCK),\ntechnological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and PCK. Further, there was\nno negative impact in the two areas where teachers were already confident:\ncontent knowledge (CK) and pedagogical knowledge (PK). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Analysis of the qualitative data from individual and focus group interviews showed that hospital teachers have a wide variety of technological, pedagogical, and personal support needs (Table 1), including the exclusive use of a mobile device, quality infrastructure, and personalized PD. Teachers\u2019 technology-related needs included basic technological knowledge and availability of Internet access:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Well, in general I\u2019m not au fait with a lot of the technology that can be used, and some of it is not actually in place, like the Wi-Fi, and sometimes we cannot even use laptops in rooms because of the connection, Internet. (pre-PD Individual Interview, #11) <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Another teacher\nremarked,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Mobile technology isn\u2019t something we can just pick up and use. Kids do, I appreciate that, but I think adults are far more fearful of it. They think they\u2019re going to wreck something, so I think it was really important to have a strategy in our school plan. (pre-PD Individual Interview, #26)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    The hospital\nteachers in this study generally expressed a strong need for learning how they\ncould effect transformational change in digital pedagogical practices and keep\nabreast of major changes in the use of mobile and other technologies in regular\nschools. Teacher needs reflected the pressure on hospitalized students to \u201ckeep\nup\u201d with their regular school peers (Franck\net al., 2013; Maor & Mitchem, 2015; McCarthy\net al., 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Teacher TPACK Pre-PD and Post-PD<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Responses from the 22 teacher-participants who\ncompleted both pre- and post-PD TPACK surveys (Figure\n3) showed relatively high levels of CK (M<\/em>\n= 4.2) and PK (M<\/em> = 4.1) pre-PD, and\nthere was no discernible change post-PD. This result could be expected for\nexperienced educators, which is a key attribute required of hospital school\nteachers. However, pre-PD data indicated low levels of TK (M<\/em> = 3.2), which increased marginally after PD (M<\/em> = 3.3). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"Figure
    Figure 3<\/strong>.<\/strong><\/em> Pre-PD and post-PD TPACK survey results for 22 teacher-participants. <\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    In the pre-PD surveys, BHS teachers had a low\nself-perception of TK, confirming a need to improve technology integration in\ntheir specified content areas and across their implementation of appropriate\n(modified) pedagogies. While teachers grew in their\nself-perceived TK after the PD, they stated that the PD experience showed them many\nopportunities for growth that they had not recognized previously (Appendix\nA<\/a>; #13, 14, 16, 25). Teachers came to the\nrealization that the TK is larger than initially thought and that it required\nmore learning in order to engage students in the full potential of the\ntechnology. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    PCK increased post-PD (M<\/em>\n= 3.8 to M<\/em> = 4.2) to reach a similar\nlevel to CK. TCK (M<\/em> = 2.8 to M<\/em> = 3.3), TPK (M<\/em> = 3.2 to M<\/em> = 3.6), and\nTPACK (M<\/em> = 2.6 to M<\/em> = 2.9) were the lowest of the\nself-rated dimensions in the pre-PD survey and showed the strongest\nimprovements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Supporting\nthese findings, a paired-samples t<\/em>-test was used to gauge the impact of\nthe PD from pre- to post-PD. With regard to TPACK specifically, the PD program\nshowed a statistically significant improvement from pre- to post-PD on TCK,\nTPK, and PCK (Table 2). BHS teachers are experienced educators; however, pre-PD\nresponses revealed their technology knowledge was limited. The customized\ntechnology PD built on their considerable existing content and PK, producing significant\nTK improvement in a short amount of time (Appendix\nA<\/a>; #6, 11, 21, 22, 26).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Participants\u2019 responses\nto the TPACK open-ended questions and interviews revealed substantial change in\nteachers\u2019 self-perceptions about their knowledge and skills following\nparticipation in the PD. Example responses to pre-PD and post-PD TPACK\nsurvey open-ended questions\nand pre-PD and post-PD individual interviews that support the findings, and referenced below, are\ndetailed in Appendix A<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Table 2<\/strong>
    Dependent Sample t-Test Results for Pre-PD and Post-PD Survey<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
    \u00a0<\/strong><\/th>Pre-PD Mean<\/strong><\/th>Post-PD Mean<\/strong><\/th>N<\/em><\/strong><\/th>Mean<\/strong>Difference<\/strong><\/th>p<\/em>-Values <\/strong>t<\/em>-Test<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    TK<\/td>3.1633<\/td>3.3265<\/td>22<\/td>.1633<\/td>.12 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    CK<\/td>4.1565<\/td>4.1088<\/td>22<\/td>\u2013.0476<\/td>.81 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    PK<\/td>4.0680<\/td>4.0612<\/td>22<\/td>\u2013.0068<\/td>.96 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    TCK<\/td>2.8095<\/td>3.2653<\/td>22<\/td>.4558<\/td>.019* <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    TPK<\/td>3.1973<\/td>3.6190<\/td>22<\/td>.4218<\/td>.03* <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    PCK<\/td>3.8333<\/td>4.2007<\/td>22<\/td>.3673<\/td>.003* <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    TPACK<\/td>2.5952<\/td>2.9252<\/td>22<\/td>.3299<\/td>.06 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Note<\/em>. * = significant at \u03b1 < .05 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n

    Pre-PD open-ended item responses highlighted a lack of\nTK and limited exposure to mobile technologies (Appendix A; #1, 2, 3, 4).\nPost-PD responses reflected greater engagement, understanding of, and access to\nmobile technologies and associated apps (Appendix A; #5, 8, 9). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Post-PD, teachers expressed their use of mobile\ntechnology for communication, information gathering, and sharing students\u2019\nlearning with other hospital school teachers, regular school teachers, and\nhealth team members (Appendix A; #14, 25). Benefits of mobile learning were\nperceived to extend from supporting learning to administration, allowing\nteachers to \u201cstreamline processes and facilitate sharing of information both\nwithin the hospital school and across health teams and schools\u201d (Appendix A; #7).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Teacher Needs Pre-PD and Post-PD <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Individual and group\ninterviews pre- and post-PD allowed us to gain an understanding of teachers\u2019\nexperiences with mobile learning and pedagogy, particularly as related to\nparticipants\u2019 views of changes in their teaching and instructional and\nreflective practices. No category is considered having a higher status\nto any other need. For this reason teachers\u2019 comments about their needs were\ndisaggregated and counted in multiple categories (Figure 4). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"Figure
    Figure 4.<\/strong> Relative frequency of teachers\u2019 needs by subcategory.<\/em> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    For example, tips and tricks<\/em> were mentioned 58 times\nin the pre-PD interviews, accounting for 8.6% of teacher\u2019s needs and then 42\ntimes, accounting for 9.3% post-PD. As teachers engaged in the PD, confidence\nlevels increased resulting in a stronger need to learn more (Appendix A; #13).\nOne participant teacher, for example, asked for more apps to cater to the needs\nof students with specific learning disabilities (Appendix A; #22).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The higher self-rating in post-PD suggested greater perceived needs of the teachers as a result of a realization that the knowledge and skills were still not sufficient for successful integration of the technology in order to engage students in the full potential of the mobile technology. This interpretation of the data was apparent in the personal support needs. We assigned no value of quality to these constructs; however, we determined that these needs were all important to the success of the PD and the outcomes of teaching the students with technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Technology\nneeds<\/em>. <\/strong>The standout finding in this study revealed that BHS teachers\u2019 technology\nneeds (McCarthy et al., 2017), the category of greatest need overall, changed\nnotably regarding access and information technology. Reported needs decreased\nfrom a high of 17.3% pre-PD to 10.6% post-PD, as teachers were provided greater\naccess to mobile devices, Wi-Fi, and technical support. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Improved infrastructure is a necessary precursor need for developing the foundational knowledge reflected in TPACK. Teachers\u2019 personal confidence increased; it was positively impacted as they were able to compare their school\u2019s digital transformation and direction with teachers from other schools, appreciating that the PD program offered them opportunities not available in other schools (Appendix A; #23). ThePersonal, Confidence, Time subcategory increased modestly (22.5% pre-PD to 24.4% post-PD) as teachers realized the number of skills they still needed to acquire to feel comfortable with technology. Participants suggested that as they engaged in PD, they became more confident in developing their own use of technology (Appendix A; #8, 17); however, they also recognized they had still more to learn (Appendix A<\/a>; #16).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Pedagogical needs.<\/em> <\/strong>Pedagogical needs were reduced post-PD for this group of teachers who have considerable PK, particularly in the Integrating Mobile Technologies Into Teaching and Learningsubcategory (20.1% pre-PD and 14.9% post-PD). The level of prior technology experience pre-PD impacted responses (Appendix A<\/a>; #24); however, one teacher did not perceive a notable change in digital technology practice post-PD (Appendix A; #19).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Personal support needs.<\/em> <\/strong>The need for personal support as it relates to c<\/em>oaching and personal support increased (6.6% pre-PD and 15.3% post-PD). Teachers also expressed a growing need for peer collaboration(4% pre-PD and 8% post-PD; Appendix A<\/a>; #20, 25). This increase likely reflected the realization by teachers post-PD that they had more to learn, and personal coaching and peer collaboration improved their learning. Some teachers explicitly mentioned the value of one-to-one technology coaching, recognizing the benefits of being coached (Appendix A; #10, 21, 22), and they considered opportunities for their own development and career progression by becoming a coach of others (Appendix A; #15). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The importance of teachers\u2019 communication needs between the hospital school, students\u2019 home, and their regular school was highlighted by some teachers pre-PD and reduced somewhat post-PD. The use of communication technologies and sharing of resources by teachers with students prompted reflection (Appendix A<\/a>; #14). Additionally, teachers perceived a supportive attitude from the school leadership (Appendix A; #18). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Summary<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The interviews\ndemonstrated increased teacher confidence via a purpose-built PD program that\nidentified and addressed teachers\u2019 needs, including personal coaching, access\nto technology, opportunities for reflection, sharing, and building a learning\ncommunity. This finding is supported by changes in teacher confidence in using mobile technologies. Figure 2 showed positive changes in TPK (13%), TCK (16%), PCK\n(10%), and TPACK (13%) following two cycles of customized PD each implemented\nover 4 weeks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Our findings are\nconsistent with other studies (Fontanilla,\n2016; Hutchison & Woodward, 2018; Maor, 2017; Voogt et al., 2012). In particular, Fontanilla\u2019s (2016) research comparing beginning teachers\nand experienced teachers showed\n\u201cexperienced teachers have stronger knowledge of pedagogy and content but they\nlack the technology knowledge to effectively integrate technology into their\ncurriculum\u201d (p. 105). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    As presented in Figure 4, the relative frequency of teachers\u2019\nneeds by subcategory pre-PD and post-PD saw pedagogical needs lowered,\nincluding integration of mobile technologies, while coaching and personal\nsupport substantially increased as teachers saw value and desired to learn more.\nOne teacher stated, \u201cMy confidence and motivation to use mobile technologies\nhas increased this year as a result of working with [the] coach and also\nwatching colleagues and sharing ideas that have been used successfully in our\nlearning area\u201d (Appendix 1; #6, 8). Confidence was boosted through the\nopportunities provided to collaborate with peers:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    That\u2019s the skills\nwe\u2019re going to need for the 21st century … what we need to bring into a\nclassroom … to be able to work collaboratively, with my peers, and then how\ndo we do that with the children? (Appendix A; #12)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This confidence was reflected in Joo et al.\u2019s (2018) research finding:\n\u201cTPACK is positively related to teacher self-efficacy, perceived ease of use,\nperceived usefulness of technology, and intention to use technology\u201d (p. 4). It\nis further supported by Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich,\nSadik, Sendurur, and Sendurur (2012), as well as Abbitt (2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Using conceptual\nframeworks such as TPACK\n(Koehler & Mishra, 2009) and 21st-century\nskills (Kereluik et al.,\n2013; Mishra & Kereluik, 2011) helped provide\ncontext for the PD and facilitated the use of common language for leaders, the coach,\nresearchers, and participants. One participant surmised, \u201cI can visualize very\neasily how the technology, the content knowledge, the pedagogy, how it all\noverlaps\u201d (Appendix A; #11). The role of TPACK together with teacher reflection\ndata provided us with strong certainty that the teachers\u2019 technological\npedagogical and personal needs were met following participation in customized\npedagogical PD. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Discussion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The PD program described in this study involved\na hospital school\u2019s leaders, teachers, a coach, and university\nresearchers, all working in partnership to gain an understanding of hospital\nteachers\u2019 needs to enable mobile technology integration into their pedagogy. Quantitative\ndata based on a modified version of Archambault\nand Crippen\u2019s (2009) TPACK survey and qualitative data from open-ended\nquestions and focus group interviews suggested that BHS teacher-participants\nembraced technology because of pedagogical advantages. They foresaw the\nbenefits and impact mobile technology can have on hospitalized students\u2019 learning.\nThe teachers\u2019 developed familiarity and confidence working with technology, collaboratively\nexploring new apps and content relevant to the curriculum and their teaching. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Identifying teachers\u2019 needs supported by PD\nsuccessfully influenced participants\u2019 preparedness to use mobile technology in\ntheir teaching. More importantly, based on responses to post-PD open questions\nand individual interviews, the 4-week coaching sessions coupled with customized\nPD and access to a mobile technology environment demonstrated a noticeable\nimpact on teachers\u2019 technological, pedagogical, and personal needs for\neffective use of mobile technology. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Moreover, having access to a coach and\ncollaborating with peers allowed teachers to develop a curiosity for technology\nintegration and opportunities for sharing and learning with peers. These\noutcomes reinforced the notion of fostering a learning community for\nprofessional growth described by Lave and Wenger (1991).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Furthermore, the findings in this study suggest that this group of experienced teachers in a hospital school setting saw benefits in collaborating as a learning community working on a common goal, in this case to implement mobile learning supporting their professional responsibilities and student learning. When asked in post-PD interviews what participants would like to see more of, an indicative comment was \u201creinforcement working with a specialist more often … and sharing what has been taught\u201d (post-PD Individual Interview, #24). This statement is consistent with the belief that learning as part of a community is more powerful and meaningful than individual learning (Gutierez & Kim, 2017; Kools & Stoll, 2016; Tondeur et al., 2016; Van der Klink et al., 2017; Wells, 2014). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Pedagogically customized PD that reflects context, supported by technology enriched educational frameworks (TPACK, 21st-century skills), and access to technology with a committed and supportive leadership successfully addressed hospital teachers\u2019 needs. Furthermore, the experience can invigorate reflective practice (Sch\u00f6n, 1983) and the pursuit of professional growth through a sense of shared learning and goal setting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The overall findings in\nthis study suggest identifying hospital school teachers\u2019 technological,\npedagogical, and personal needs can guide the design of effective PD for use of\nmobile technology. Teachers\u2019 capacity to embrace and adopt new technologies were\nsignificantly improved when needs were understood and PD was customized to meet\nthose needs.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Conclusions and Implications<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Addressing teacher needs through customized PD,\nsupported with individualized coaching, can in a short amount of time increase TPK\nto enable the improved use of mobile technology in a hospital school setting. Participants realized\nthe benefits of pedagogical implications, personal learning with a coach,\ntogether with the opportunity to share and collaborate with other teachers about\ntheir experiences. The TPACK framework and 21st-century skills were scaffolded\nduring the PD and were instrumental in successfully designing an effective\npedagogical PD program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This\nstudy provides hospital schools that wish to embark on technological change a\nframework for teacher professional learning and technology integration, which\nin turn, supports students\u2019 learning with mobile technologies while in the hospital.\nResults of this study can guide school leaders implementing mobile learning and\nrelated pedagogical strategies to address teacher needs via PD.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    More\nbroadly, the study can have implications for all education leaders as they\nembark on PD\nprograms and technology integration. The effective use of mobile technologies for\nlearning requires that teacher PD has depth to address a variety of identified needs. Opportunities\nto participate with a coach or with colleagues, at a time and location that\nsuits each individual, is important along with addressing context, each teacher\u2019s\nneeds, and providing pedagogical support. The coaching approach to providing PD\nis one that can\nbe considered and contextualized for all teachers and schools. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A\nkey recommendation for leaders based on the findings of this study is to ensure\nthey are supportive, and the needs of their community recognized, communicated,\nand integrated in the decision making of a strategic plan. Furthermore, identifying\nall stakeholders\u2019 needs provides opportunities to produce evidence and insights\nto enhance the rationale for future strategies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    While this research focused on identifying teachers\u2019 needs and designing a customized PD to transform mobile technology use, further research is needed to examine how to deliver holistic digital transformation that fully encompasses not only teacher needs but those of all stakeholders and the context within which they operate. Ongoing research should consider ensuring equity of access to technology and support, sustainable funding and resourcing, and ensuring the learning spaces teachers and students operate within are appropriate and contemporary to optimize collaboration and learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Author Note<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    This project was partly supported by the Young and Well CRC (2013-2016). The Young and Well CRC was established under the Australian Government\u2019s Cooperative Research Centre Program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    References<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological\npedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education: A review of current\nmethods and instruments. Journal of\nResearch on Technology in Education<\/em>, 43<\/em>,\n281\u2013300. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/15391523.2011.10782573<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Andersen, T. K. (2018). Understanding\nthe success or failure of organizational ICT integration: The criticality of\nmanagerial involvement. Journal of Change Management<\/em>, 18<\/em>, 327\u2013343. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/14697017.2018.1491482<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Apple\nInc. (2019). Apple Distinguished Educators. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.apple.com\/education\/apple-distinguished-educator\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K\u201312\nonline distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in\nTechnology and Teacher Education<\/em>, 9<\/em>,\n71\u201388. Retrieved from https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-9\/issue-1-09\/general\/examining-tpack-among-k-12-online-distance-educators-in-the-united-states\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Australian\nCurriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2019). Australian curriculum:\nintroduction.Retrieved\nfrom https:\/\/www.australiancurriculum.edu.au\/f-10-curriculum\/technologies\/introduction\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Australian Institute for Teaching\nand School Leadership. (2019). About AITSL. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.aitsl.edu.au\/about-aitsl<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Barrett-Greenly, T. C. (2013). Investigating\nthe impact of professional development on teacher practices and beliefs\nregarding the use of mobile educational applications in the classroom<\/em>\n(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession No. 3555257)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Botha, A., Batchelor, J., Traxler, J., de Waard, I., & Herselman, M.\n(2012). Towards a mobile learning curriculum framework. In P. Cunningham &\nM. Cunningham (Eds.), IST-Africa 2012 conference\nproceedings <\/em>(pp. 1\u20139). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.ist-africa.org\/home\/outbox\/ISTAfrica_Paper_ref_190_doc_4866.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Bryk, A. S. (2015). 2014 AERA distinguished lecture: Accelerating how we\nlearn to improve. Educational Researcher<\/em>,\n44<\/em>, 467\u2013477. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3102\/0013189X15621543<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Cavanaugh, C., Hargis, J., Kamali, T., & Soto, M. (2013).\nSubstitution to augmentation: Faculty adoption of iPad mobile learning in\nhigher education. Interactive Technology\nand Smart Education<\/em>, 10<\/em>, 270\u2013284.\nhttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.1108\/ITSE-01-2013-0001<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Cavanaugh, C., Kelley, G., & McCarthy.\nA. (2018). Implementing new technologies to enhance professional learning. In\nA. M. Novack & C. L. Weber (Eds.), Best\npractices in professional learning and teacher preparation: Methods and\nstrategies for gifted professional development<\/em> (Vol. 1, pp. 173\u2013186). Waco,\nTX: Prufrock Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Cavanaugh, C., Maor, D., &\nMcCarthy. A. (2018). Mobile learning. In K. Kennedy & R. E. Ferdig (Eds.), Handbook of research on K\u201312 online and blended\nlearning<\/em> (2nd ed., pp. 575\u2013591). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University\nETC Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Children\u2019s Hospitals Australasia. (2017, May 31). Charter on the rights of children and young people in healthcare\nservices in Australia<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/children.wcha.asn.au\/publications\/charter-rights-children-and-young-people-healthcare-services-australia<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Cochrane,\nT., Narayan, V., & Oldfield, J. (2013). IPadagogy: Appropriating the iPad\nwithin pedagogical contexts. International Journal of Mobile Learning\nand Organisation<\/em>, 7<\/em>,\n48\u201365. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1504\/IJMLO.2013.051573<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u00c7oklar, A. N., & \u00d6zbek, A. (2017).\nAnalyzing of relationship between teachers\u2019 individual innovativeness levels\nand their TPACK self-efficacies. Journal of Human Sciences<\/em>, 14<\/em>, 427\u2013440.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research<\/em> (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative\nand qualitative research<\/em> (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Dimmock, C. (2016). Conceptualising the research\u2013practice\u2013professional development\nnexus: Mobilising schools as \u2018research-engaged\u2019\nprofessional learning communities. Professional Development in Education<\/em>, 42<\/em>, 36\u201353. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/19415257.2014.963884<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T.,\nSadik, O., Sendurur, E.,\n& Sendurur, P. (2012).\nTeacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education<\/em>, 59<\/em>, 423\u2013435. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.compedu.2012.02.001<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Fontanilla, H. S. (2016). Comparison of\nbeginning teachers\u2019 and\nexperienced teachers\u2019\nreadiness to integrate technology as measured by TPACK scores<\/em>. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. <\/em>(Accession No.\n3740148).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Franck, L. S., Gay, C. L., & Rubin, N. (2013). Accommodating\nfamilies during a child\u2019s hospital stay: Implications for family experience and\nperceptions of outcomes. Families,\nSystems, & Health<\/em>, 31<\/em>, 294\u2013306.\nhttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/a0033556<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Geer,\nR., White, B., Zeegers, Y., Au, W., & Barnes, A. (2017). Emerging\npedagogies for the use of iPads in schools. British Journal of\nEducational Technology<\/em>, 48<\/em>,\n490\u2013498. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/bjet.12381<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Glahn, C. (2016). Challenges and barriers\nfor mobile learning in security and defence organisations. In J. Traxler & A.\nKukulska-Hulme(Eds.), Mobile\nlearning: The next generation<\/em> (pp. 179\u2013189). New York, NY:\nRoutledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Gutierez, S. B., & Kim, H.-B.\n(2017). Becoming teacher-researchers: Teachers\u2019 reflections on collaborative\nprofessional development. Educational Research<\/em>, 59<\/em>, 444\u2013459. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/00131881.2017.1347051<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ha\u00dfler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S. (2016). Tablet use in schools:\nA critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning<\/em>, 32<\/em>, 139\u2013156. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/jcal.12123<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Harris, J., Phillips,\nM., Koehler, M. J., & Rosenberg, J. (2017). TPCK\/TPACK research and\ndevelopment: Past, present, and future directions. Australasian Journal of\nEducational Technology<\/em>, 33<\/em>(3),\ni\u2013viii.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Hattie, J., & Anderman, E. M. (Eds.). (2013).\nInternational guide to student achievement<\/em>. New York, NY: Routledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Hutchison, A. C., & Woodward, L. (2018).\nExamining the technology integration planning cycle model of professional\ndevelopment to support teachers\u2019 instructional practices. Teachers College\nRecord<\/em>, 120<\/em>(10), 1\u201344.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    International Society for Technology in\nEducation. (2019). ISTE standards<\/em>.\nRetrieved from https:\/\/www.iste.org\/standards<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Jahnke, I., Bergstr\u00f6m, P., M\u00e5rell-Olsson, E.,\nH\u00e4ll, L., & Kumar, S.. (2017). Digital didactical designs as research\nframework: IPad integration in Nordic schools. Computers &\nEducation<\/em>, 113<\/em>,\n1\u201315. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.compedu.2017.05.006<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Jensen,\nB., Hunter, J., Sonnemann, J., & Cooper, S. (2014). Making time for great teaching.<\/em> Carlton, Australia: Grattan\nInstitute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Johnson,\nR. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research\nparadigm whose time has come. Educational\nResearcher<\/em>, 33<\/em>(7), 14\u201326. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3102\/0013189X033007014<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors\ninfluencing preservice teachers\u2019 intention to use technology: TPACK, teacher\nself-efficacy, and Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Educational\nTechnology & Society<\/em>, 21<\/em>(3),\n48\u201359.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., &\nTerry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth: Teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of Digital Learning in\nTeacher Education<\/em>, 29<\/em>,\n127\u2013140. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/21532974.2013.10784716<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological\npedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary\nIssues in Technology and Teacher Education<\/em>, 9<\/em>, 60\u201370. Retrieved from https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-9\/issue-1-09\/general\/what-is-technological-pedagogicalcontent-knowledge\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Koh, J. H. L. (2018). TPACK design\nscaffolds for supporting teacher pedagogical change. Educational Technology\nResearch and Development<\/em>. Advance online publication. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11423-018-9627-5<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Benjamin, W., & Hong, H.-Y. (2015).\nTechnological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and design thinking: A framework\nto support ICT lesson design for 21st century learning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher<\/em>, 24<\/em>, 535\u2013543. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s40299-015-0237-2<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Kools,\nM., & Stoll L. (2016). What makes a school\na learning organisation?<\/em> (OECD\nEducation Working Papers, No. 137). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1787\/5jlwm62b3bvh-en<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Kopcha,\nT. J. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice. Educational\nTechnology Research and Development<\/em>, 58<\/em>, 175\u2013190. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11423-008-9095-4<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Kopcha, T. J. (2013) Teachers\u2019 perceptions of the barriers\nto technology integration and practices with technology under situated\nprofessional development. Computers & Education<\/em>, 59<\/em>, 1109\u20131121. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.compedu.2012.05.014<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Kraft, M. A., & Blazar, D. (2017).\nIndividualized coaching to improve teacher practice across grades and subjects:\nNew experimental evidence. Educational Policy<\/em>, 31<\/em>, 1033\u20131068. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0895904816631099<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral\nparticipation. <\/em>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/CBO9780511815355<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Liu,\nF., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2017). Explaining\ntechnology integration in K\u201312 classrooms: A multilevel path analysis\nmodel. Educational Technology\nResearch and Development<\/em>, 65<\/em>,\n795\u2013813. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11423-016-9487-9<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Magen-Nagar,\nN., & Steinberger, P. (2017). Characteristics of an innovative learning\nenvironment according to students\u2019 perceptions: Actual versus preferred. Learning\nEnvironments Research<\/em>, 20<\/em>,\n307\u2013323. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10984-017-9232-2<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Maor, D.\n(2017). Using TPACK to develop digital pedagogues: A higher education\nexperience. Journal of Computers in Education<\/em>, 4<\/em>, 71\u201386. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s40692-016-0055-4<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Maor, D., & Mitchem, K. J. (2015). Can technologies make a difference for hospitalized youth: Findings\nfrom research.\nJournal of Computer Assisted Learning<\/em>, 31<\/em>, 690\u2013705. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/jcal.12112<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Marzano, R. J. (2017). The new\nart and science of teaching.<\/em> Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Melhuish, K., & Falloon, G. (2010). Looking\nto the future: M-learning with the iPad. Computers in New Zealand Schools:\nLearning, Leading, Technology<\/em>, 22<\/em>(3), 1\u201316.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    McCarthy, A., Maor, D., & McConney, A. (2017). Mobile technology in hospital\nschools: What are teachers\u2019 professional learning needs? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education<\/em>, 25<\/em>, 61\u201389.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    McConney,\nA., Rudd, A., & Ayres, R. (2002). Getting\nto the bottom line: A method for synthesizing findings within mixed-method\nprogram evaluations. American\nJournal of Evaluation<\/em>, 23<\/em>, 121\u2013140.\nhttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/109821400202300202<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Mishra, P., & Kereluik, K. (2011). What 21st century learning? A\nreview and a synthesis. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2011: Society for\nInformation Technology and Teacher Education International Conference <\/em>(pp.\n3301\u20133312). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in\nEducation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical\ncontent knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record<\/em>, 108<\/em>,\n1017\u20131054.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). OECD education 2030. <\/em>Retrieved from http:\/\/www.oecd.org\/education\/2030\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Peccarelli, B. (2019, January 14).\nAI isn\u2019t taking our jobs – But it is changing how we recruit. Retrieved from\nWorld Economic Forum website: https:\/\/www.weforum.org\/agenda\/2019\/01\/ai-is-changing-the-way-we-recruit<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Phillips, M. (2017). Processes of\npractice and identity shaping teachers\u2019 TPACK enactment in a community of\npractice. Education and Information Technologies<\/em>, 22<\/em>, 1771\u20131796. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10639-016-9512-y<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Power,\nR. (2018). Supporting mobile instructional design with CSAM. In S. Yu, M. Ally,\n& A. Tsinakos (Eds.), Mobile and ubiquitous\nlearning: An international handbook <\/em>(pp. 193\u2013209). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-981-10-6144-8_12<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Roth, M. A., & Price, J. K. (2016). The critical\nrole of leadership for education transformation with successful technology implementation.\nIn R. Huang, Kinshuk, & J. K. Price (Eds.), ICT in education in global context: Comparative reports of innovations\nin K\u201312 education <\/em>(pp. 195\u2013213). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-662-47956-8_10<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ruhalahti, S., Korhonen, A.-M., & Rasi, P.\n(2017). Authentic, dialogical knowledge construction: A blended and mobile\nteacher education programme. Educational Research<\/em>, 59<\/em>, 373\u2013390.\nhttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/00131881.2017.1369858<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Saunders, R. (2014).\nEffectiveness of research-based teacher professional\ndevelopment: A mixed method study of a four-year systemic change initiative. Australian Journal of\nTeacher Education<\/em>, 39<\/em>(4), 166\u2013184. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.14221\/ajte.2014v39n4.10<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Sch\u00f6n, D.\nA. (1983). The reflective practitioner:\nHow professionals think in action. <\/em>New York, NY: Basic Books.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    School of Special\nEducational Needs: Medical and Mental Health. (2019). About us<\/em>. Retrieved from http:\/\/ssenmmh.wa.edu.au\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Shulman, L. S.\n(1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher<\/em>, 15<\/em>(2), 4\u201314. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3102\/0013189X015002004<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations\nof the new reform. Harvard Educational\nReview<\/em>, 57<\/em>, 1\u201322. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17763\/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Spiteri, M., & Rundgren, S.-N. C. (2018).\nLiterature review on the factors affecting primary teachers\u2019 use of digital\ntechnology. Technology, Knowledge and Learning<\/em>. Advance online\npublication. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10758-018-9376-x<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Stenhouse,\nL. (1975). An introduction to curriculum\nresearch and development<\/em>. London, England: Heinemann.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Tarling, I., & Ng\u2019ambi, D. (2016). Teachers\npedagogical change framework: A diagnostic tool for changing teachers\u2019 uses of\nemerging technologies. British Journal of\nEducational Technology<\/em>, 47<\/em>, 554\u2013572.\nhttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/bjet.12454<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Tondeur, J., Forkosh-Baruch, A., Prestridge, S., Albion,\nP., & Edirishinghe, S. (2016). Responding to challenges in teacher professional\ndevelopment for ICT integration in education. Educational Technology & Society<\/em>, 19<\/em>(3), 110\u2013120.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E.\n(2017). A comprehensive investigation of TPACK within pre-service teachers\u2019 ICT\nprofiles: Mind the gap! Australasian Journal of Educational Technology<\/em>, 33<\/em>(3), 46\u201360. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.14742\/ajet.3504<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Unger, K. L., & Tracey, M. W. (2013). Examining the factors of a\ntechnology professional development intervention. Journal of Computing in Higher Education<\/em>, 25<\/em>, 123\u2013146. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s12528-013-9070-x<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Van der Klink, M.,\nKools, Q., Avissar, G., White, S., & Sakata, T. (2017). Professional development of teacher educators: What do they do? Findings from an explorative international study. Professional\nDevelopment in Education<\/em>, 43<\/em>, 163\u2013178. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/19415257.2015.1114506<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J.\nA. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills\nand digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in\nHuman Behavior<\/em>, 72<\/em>,\n577\u2013588. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.chb.2017.03.010<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Voogt,\nJ., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2012).\nTechnological pedagogical content knowledge \u2013 A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning<\/em>, 29<\/em>, 109\u2013121. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Voogt, J., & Pareja Roblin, N. (2012) A\ncomparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences:\nImplications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies<\/em>, 44<\/em>,\n299\u2013321. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/00220272.2012.668938<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Wells, M. (2014). Elements of effective and sustainable professional learning. Professional Development in Education<\/em>, 40<\/em>, 488\u2013504. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/19415257.2013.838691<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Young,\nK. (2016). Teachers\u2019 attitudes to\nusing iPads or tablet computers: Implications for developing new skills,\npedagogies and school-provided support. TechTrends<\/em>, 60<\/em>, 183\u2013189. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11528-016-0024-9<\/a>
    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n

    Appendix A
    Participant Example Responses<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Pre-PD TPACK open-questions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
    #<\/strong><\/th>ID<\/strong><\/th>Comment<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    1<\/td>4<\/td>One of my students periodically goes on-line to do group research with members of her class.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    2<\/td>5<\/td>With the limitations I used YouTube to demonstrate the devastation created by tsunamis (2004) and (2011) after studying content in the written form (text book).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    3<\/td>14<\/td>I used a program on the smart board (Prehistoric Sentence Builder) which describes sentence building, then the children took turns at building silly and sensible sentences.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    4<\/td>16<\/td>As I run an Art Program, I mainly use technology for searching images of particular artists and their work. These are then used to provide students with some background information about the artist and some examples of their work.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n

    Post-PD TPACK open-questions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
    #<\/strong><\/th>ID<\/strong><\/th>Comment<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    5<\/td>3<\/td>it appears that the more one-on-one IT coaching that i engage in, the higher my confidence & competence in using mobile technology increases. additionally, when i have chosen to focus on only one aspect of this technology (until i feel proficient), the greater my skills level of understanding\/competence are.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    6<\/td>8<\/td>My confidence and motivation to use mobile technologies has increased this year as a result of working with [the] Coach and also watching colleagues and sharing ideas that have been used successfully in our learning area.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    7<\/td>10<\/td>Attempting to use mobile technologies in all phases of teaching and to address all levels of thinking vs simply engaging in low level\/recall apps or games, eg: emphasizing use of creative apps; using mobile technology for communicating with others \u2013 ie: sharing students' learning with enrolled school\/teachers\/other HSS staff\/health teams\/themselves, emailing to student account to share or follow up\/continue working on themselves, and using mobile technologies to gather student information (self-assessment) to streamline processes and facilitate sharing of information both within HSS and across health teams and schools.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    8<\/td>14<\/td>I began at zero - having never used an iPad before - to now being confident with using a variety of apps, searching for and assessing apps for further use, and realizing the usefulness in a hospital setting.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    9<\/td>16<\/td>I am currently developing audio-visual learning resources using SnagIt and dual monitors to enable students with memory and recall difficulties to learn how to use computer applications in conjunction with an online learning resource at www.gcflearnfree.org. I have used feedback from students to modify the audio-visual materials that can be downloaded onto USB memory sticks and utilised at home by the students.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n

    Post-PD Individual Interviews<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
    #<\/strong><\/th>ID<\/strong><\/th>Comment<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    10<\/td>1<\/td>A very powerful thing to be able to have a session tailor made for what your needs are.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    11<\/td>1<\/td>I can visualize very easily how the technology, the content knowledge, the pedagogy, how it all overlaps.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    12<\/td>3<\/td>That\u2019s the skills we\u2019re going to need for the 21st century . . . what we need to bring into a classroom . . . to be able to work collaboratively, with my peers, and then how do we do that with the children?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    13<\/td>6<\/td>It\u2019s quite daunting as there\u2019s a lot to learn but having an iPad personally has helped me. Because they have that push and they\u2019ve been giving us options like today has been fantastic because you get time to explore and use and be hands on with it.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    14<\/td>6<\/td>It\u2019s a lot easier to have a connection with schools through technology. To engage children, technology is always a good thing, and I find a lot of schools are using technology, especially in high schools. . . . Twenty years ago when you were just thrown in and you didn\u2019t do a lot of researching and finding of resources. Teachers were quite protective of what they\u2019d found because of all the work that went into it so to give that freely, . . . I\u2019m just finding that people love to share and it\u2019s what we do in our primary network meetings. We, people have actually asked to have a sharing time and I find that really valuable.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    15<\/td>11<\/td>. . . And they\u2019ve asked those of us who have had the benefit of a coach, to be mentors in IT [information technology] as well . . .<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    16<\/td>12<\/td>So, for me, just being able to use one piece of technology that then opened up a whole different, other way, of looking at things, that was quite important. That was a game changer in a sense.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    17<\/td>14<\/td>Initially you felt that if you used an iPad it was deemed as perhaps an easy option whereas now you feel confident that everyone realizes how broad the apps are and how subject specific curriculum and pedagogically minded and so you feel that there is definitely going to be some subject area of interest to engage and so it\u2019s made you feel more confident and comfortable.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    18<\/td>15<\/td>[The school] is very supportive of anyone who wants to do professional learning in an area they need extra information, a very supportive environment, regardless of whether you are an EA [education assistant] or a teacher, it is a very fair environment. It\u2019s very respectful, from my point of view.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    19<\/td>16<\/td>I use them more frequently, but I don't often work with groups online and only use mobile technologies as I see appropriate for the learning context. Mobile technologies are not my \u201cgo to\u201d preferences.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    20<\/td>19<\/td>. . . Going from generic PD, to very targeted, and going now to how you can share and collaborate or where you can get more ideas from.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    21<\/td>24<\/td>With the introduction of such technologies and some excellent coaching I am excited about the variety of opportunities and the expansion of teaching techniques available through mobile technologies.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    22<\/td>22<\/td>There are lots of different apps and they\u2019re fine, but what I was finding was that in my team, the pediatric adolescent medicine team, there was a run of students . . . I actually did not feel confident in engaging these students, so with [the coach] I was able to ask for specific apps that would suit the students, that I wasn\u2019t comfortable with, more than the ones that I do know.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    23<\/td>25<\/td>They [other school\u2019s teachers] can\u2019t believe that we have things like ILT [instructor-led training] coaching, so I\u2019ve always thought it was good, but talking to people in schools I realize how lucky we really are. We get a lot more help and a lot more information than they do.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    24<\/td>25<\/td>I am using [technology] a lot more than I used to, to be honest. I\u2019m probably not using a lot more things, I\u2019m just using it more often as I\u2019m getting more familiar with what works. I\u2019ve got my fave [favorite] things that I do.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    25<\/td>25<\/td>We\u2019re showing each other how to do things: \u201chave you seen this?\u201d a lot more than we ever have before.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    26<\/td>26<\/td>I am always trying to think, well what am I doing about trying to redefine a curriculum? . . . I don\u2019t want to just substitute everything I do, I actually want to augment what I do, to redefine.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n
    \n\n\n\n

    Appendix B
    Teachers Interview Questions: Teaching With Mobile Technology in Hospital Schools<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Interview Questions <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    • How long have you been teaching?<\/li>
    • How long have you worked in the hospital schools\nservice?<\/li>
    • What is your content area?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      Current situation<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      • What is the current use of mobile\ntechnology in your hospital school?<\/li>
      • Do you use it in your work? If so, how? (i.e.,\nsmartboard; laptops; iPad; iPhone)<\/li>
      • What is your perception of the use of\ntechnology in hospital schools and how important do you believe technology is\nin the learning of hospital schools students?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        Professional development<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        • How are teachers guided and developed in the use\nof mobile and learning technologies? <\/li>
        • How does the professional learning and\ndevelopment provided to you deal with the integration of technology into your\nlearning program? <\/li>
        • What are your expectations on professional\nlearning and development opportunities? <\/li>
        • Do you feel you have the right access to people,\nresources, and time?<\/li>
        • When is the most appropriate time for you to\nengage in Professional development? Before school, after school, school holidays,\njust in time?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

          Teaching<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          • How does using technology impact on your\npedagogical decisions?<\/li>
          • What changes have you noticed in your teaching\nwith the growth in technologies? What brought about these changes?<\/li>
          • How do you manage the use of technology by the\nstudents so they achieve the goals of the lesson\/topic? <\/li>
          • How important are 21st century skills such as problem\nsolving, use of technology or creativity for curriculum development and use by\nstudents?<\/li>
          • Do you feel you have enough access to\nprofessional literature on the use of learning technologies?<\/li>
          • What are your current needs in order to better\nintegrate technologies in your teaching?<\/li>
          • Have you heard of the following research models,\nand if so:
            • Can you see how the TPACK model assists in your\nPD and teaching?<\/li><\/ul>
              • Can you see how 21st century skills assists in your PD\nand teaching?<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                Additional questions<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                • What have you learnt from other teachers, and\nfrom students (in relation to mobile technologies usage)?<\/li>
                • Is there anything that you would like to add?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
                  \n\n\n\n

                  Appendix C
                  TPACK Open-Ended Survey Questions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

                  The following\nquestion was delivered in the pre-PD TPACK survey:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  • Describe\na specific episode where you as a teacher demonstrated or modeled the\ncombination of content, technologies and a particular teaching approach in a\nlesson. Please include in your description the content that was being taught,\nthe technology being used, and the teaching approach(es) that was implemented.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                    The following question\nwas delivered in the post-PD TPACK survey:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                    • As\nyou reflect on your personal and professional development, can you elaborate on\nyour experiences in using mobile technologies this year.<\/li><\/ul>\n
                      <\/div>

                      <\/path><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>

                      <\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                      In the unique setting of a school located in a hospital, hospitalized students must be provided with inclusive educational opportunities and learning initiatives equivalent to their regular school peers. In part, these opportunities facilitate a successful transition back to their regular school (Franck, Gay, & Rubin, 2013). Hospital teachers provide learning experiences typical of a […]<\/p>\n

                      <\/div>\n

                      <\/path><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>\n

                      <\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":[],"meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"publication":[112,109],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8638"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8638"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8638\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8638"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8638"},{"taxonomy":"publication","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication?post=8638"},{"taxonomy":"paper_format","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/format?post=8638"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}