Classroom Technology Transformation using the 4 T’s Framework
International Partnerships between K-12 Teachers and University
Alexandra Kanellis, Holly Atkins and Candace Roberts
Saint Leo Univeristy, State Road 54, Saint Leo, Florida, U.S.A.
Keywords: Teacher Development, Professional Development, Technology Integration, Differentiated Instruction,
4 T’s Framework.
Abstract: How do educators develop the theoretical and practical knowledge and skills required of 21
st
century
teachers? Teachers need effective technology exposure and practice in order to develop the skills required to
integrate current technologies into daily lessons. A partnership between Education Department faculty in the
United States and K-12 private school teachers in Southern Europe revealed the necessity of the 4Ts of
Time, Tools, Training, and Teamwork when exposed to emergent technologies.
1 INTRODUCTION
Technology has ‘invaded’ the K-12 public and
private classrooms globally. The advancements in
technology, from simple document cameras to iPads
and interactive whiteboards, have increased the need
for teacher technology training and infusion of
technology in daily classroom instruction. Models
of what effective use of technology in the classroom
should look like have been proposed, including the
SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification,
Redefinition) Model (Puentedura, 2013) and the
TPACK (Technology, Pedagogy, and Content
Knowledge) Model (Mishra, P., and Koehler, M.,
2006) However, research suggests that despite the
increased training offered to K-12 teachers, high-
level technology integration is low (An, Y., and
Reigeluth, C., 2011; Kozma, 2003; Mueller, Wood,
Willoughby, Ross, and Specht, 2008; Smeets, 2005;
Tondeur, van Braak, and Valcke, 2007a; Project
Tomorrow, 2008;).
The question remains: How do educators develop
the theoretical and practical knowledge and skills
required of 21
st
century teachers? Based upon our
work with university faculty in an education
department, pre-service teachers, as well as veteran
classroom teachers, we have found they need the
4Ts of Time, Tools, Training, and Teamwork
intentionally cultivated and structured in ways that
promote their dynamic interdependence with
powerful results that multiply their impact. An
ongoing project with teachers at a rural, K-12 school
in Southern Europe, reflects the successful,
transformative effect on teachers of professional
development based upon the 4Ts framework in
becoming digital educators.
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Figure 1: Four T’s of Technology Transformation
Many researchers have identified components of
professional development that effectively support
teacher growth and specific skill development. The
components of effective teacher transformation in
technology practice include Time (Cuban, l.,
Kirkpatrick, H., and Peck, C., 2001), Tools (Cuckle,
P. and Clarke, S., 2002), Training (Desimone, L.M.
2009; Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman,
B., and Yoon, K.S. (2001), and Teamwork (Wei, R.
C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson,
N., Orphanos, S., 2009). However, these
components of effective professional development
447
Kanellis A., Atkins H. and Roberts C..
Classroom Technology Transformation using the 4 T’s Framework - International Partnerships between K-12 Teachers and University.
DOI: 10.5220/0005487104470451
In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2015), pages 447-451
ISBN: 978-989-758-107-6
Copyright
c
2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
are often seen as isolated elements, and the integral
connectivity among the elements is missing. In
addition, our work with various groups of educators
highlighted the critical thread of Leadership,
pulling the 4Ts together, supporting and nurturing
each of the elements as needed in these communities
of practice (Probst, G. and Borzillo, S., 2008).
2.1 Setting and Participants
Researchers have found that teachers’ meaningful
use of technology is lacking in education (Cuban,
Kirkpatrick, and Peck, 2001; International Society
for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2008;
Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2007).
Administrators at a K-12 rural school in Southern
Europe saw a similar need, and initiated a
collaboration between the school and faculty at an
American university’s school of education.
The private school is an independent, nonprofit
institution that was founded in the early 1900.
Today, its three major educational divisions include
a primary, elementary and secondary school. It is a
leading school in the rural development of Southern
Europe, and focuses on sustainability and
environmental studies. The school applies learner-
centered and project based instruction to strengthen
academic knowledge and enhance sensitive towards
the environment.
The school currently serves approximately 500
students in the K-12 classroom. It is notable that
97% of the K-12 faculty have advanced degrees in
education and on average have 17 years of teaching
experiences in the K-12 environment.
School administrators identified a select number
of K-12 teachers, who expressed an interest in
technology integration, to participate in the
workshops. Three education faculty members
facilitated the workshops. The sessions focused on
technology integration in the K-12 classroom, with a
concentration on iPad applications, Mimio Tech
Tools and Web 2.0 tools to increase academic
achievement in low performing students. Upon
completion of the program, all participants received
an iPad mini to use in their classroom.
Twenty K-12 teachers applied to participate, but
only eight were accepted into the program the first
year. The school administrators selected teachers
that were employed full time, had more than four
years of teaching experience, collaborated well with
colleagues and had a positive outlook toward
change. The participants were required to
demonstrate basic technology skills, commit to
attending eight evening webinars, and engage in a
three-day on ground workshop and showcase. The
teachers were at various levels of technology
proficiency, which was expected. Some teachers
served students in the primary grade levels while
others taught English and Social Studies at the
secondary level.
The eight participating teachers were asked to
identify their strengths and weaknesses in the
classroom, as perceived by them, The primary need
for professional development identified by these
participating teachers was differentiated instruction
and technology integration in daily K-12 classroom
instruction. The workshop content, therefore, was
based on the teachers’ professional goals and the
institution’s goal to increase innovative instructional
practices with an emphasis on technology.
The facilitating education faculty came from
diverse educational background; two were experts in
technology and one on exceptional student education
and differentiated instruction. The combined
expertise helped highlight the success of technology
tools integration in differentiated instruction
classrooms. It allowed the facilitators to focus on
academic growth in kinesthetic, tactile, visual and
auditory learners.
2.2 Communities of Practice in Virtual
and Face-to-Face Worlds
The workshop was separated into two segments. The
first part was provided virtually via 8 weekly
modules using shared Google Documents and
Google Hangouts. These tools were selected because
they were free for the facilitators and the
participants. Furthermore, the school used Google as
the primary email provider. All of the K-12
teachers, administrators, and staff had been trained
on Google, Google docs and other free Google
sources. In addition, the university faculty
facilitators wanted to support the school initiatives,
demonstrate the use of the provided tools, and
encourage teachers to use / master tools they had
access to within their system. The Google Hangouts
also allowed for discussions parallel to the contact
presentation and document sharing. Although the
facilitators faced some unexpected connectivity
challenges, the virtual sessions were successful. To
help facilitate the discussion board / chat during
each session, one of the education faculty members
responded to questions and addressed comments,
while the others provided the virtual content
instruction. The 1½ hour sessions were presented in
eight virtual modules. A community of practice was
soon established, and foundational information
began to be assimilated. This community of practice
provided the 2 Ts of Training and Teams. For
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
448
educators to develop the skills to successfully
integrated technology into their classrooms, they
need relevant training (in this case, based on their
own identified needs), and they need communities of
practice that support the members. Together, the
participants interacted in the modules, and later
continued supporting each other as a team, as will be
discussed later.
The modules focused on eight interconnected
topics: a) What is differentiated instruction? b) How
can teachers differentiate instruction for student with
specific learning disabilities, attention deficit
disorders and behavioural challenges? c) What web
2.0 tools are available to K-12 classroom teachers to
support differentiated instruction? d) How can
interactive white boards such as the Mimio Teach be
used to differentiate instruction? e) How can
teachers use Mimio tools and Mimio Studio to
differentiate instruction? f) How can teachers
support students’ higher order thinking, and what
assessment tools can be used? g) How can
technology support students as readers and writers?
Google Docs was used to provide the content
materials for the K-12 teachers to review. All of the
materials were uploaded a week prior to the Google
Hangout session, and participants were expected to
review the content, ask clarifying questions, respond
to the weekly discussion questions, and be prepared
for the weekly presentation sessions. Each week a
designated participant shared a ‘new’ instructional
practice that was successfully incorporated into his
or her instruction. The teacher was responsible for
sharing the strengths and weaknesses of the new
tool/instructional method. This practice encouraged
participation and accountability despite the virtual
setting.
A five day on-ground workshop was scheduled
at the end of the eight modules. The three education
faculty members travelled from the United States to
Southern Europe and provided face-to-face
interactive sessions to the nine K-12 participating
teachers. The workshop included morning
presentations and time was allocated to ‘play’ with
the various devices in the afternoon. The agenda
included morning presentations of content, followed
by guided exploration and finally independent
exploration. At the end of each day, the participants
shared the practicality of the device, expected
adaptations to current instructional methods and
expected challenges. The trainings included an
introduction to the use of the Mimio, Mimio mobile,
Web 2.0 tools, iPad, and educational iPad
applications. The facilitators also focused on
successful practices in a one iPad classroom. The
primary focus was to make teachers comfortable
with using technology to differentiate instruction.
The introduction of each device was accompanied
by pedagogy supporting infusion of technology in
the K-12 classroom and differentiated instruction
strategies / methods. In addition to daily interaction
during hands-on learning sessions, participants were
expected to develop a plan for how they would
demonstrate their learning gained from the online
and face-to-face sessions and share these plans with
fellow participants, thus strengthening the element s
of teamwork, as well as leadership. Time was
allocated, throughout the on-ground workshop, for
teachers to use the technology tools. The advantages
and limitation of each device became apparent to
each participant, and they were able to develop a
plan for classroom instruction. This time was very
beneficial to help answer questions as teacher
explored the devices. Time is a precious commodity
for teachers. It is one of the most significant reasons
teachers struggle to develop new technology skills.
It is challenging to find time to engage in
professional development (training), and as well as
to find time to experiment and implement. The
participants in this community of practice committed
to engage in the 8 weeks of pre-workshop modules
as well as the on-ground training.
In addition, upon completion of the program, the
participating teachers committed to incorporating at
least one device or Web 2.0 tool and using
differentiated instruction in their teaching. In order
to continue evolving as digital educators, they also
agreed to continue meeting monthly as a team to
share what they were learning and doing. One
teacher was assigned to serve as the leader of this
group, which soon adopted the name “SWITCH,”
reflecting the pedagogical changes teachers were
making in their classes. Meeting monthly provided
members of the team opportunities to learn from
each other and to begin to rely on each other for help
and support. Regular meetings also provided an
element of collegial accountability; they knew each
month they had to share what they had learned or
done with technology in their classrooms. In these
monthly meetings, the elements of time, training,
and teamwork continue to reinforce the work begun
during the online modules. The SWITCH group also
began to play a pivotal role in furthering the
development of other teachers at the school,
conducting training sessions on topics such as
differentiated instruction. Diffusion of knowledge
through these early adopters offers an important,
effective alternative to top-down mandates.
ClassroomTechnologyTransformationusingthe4T'sFramework-InternationalPartnershipsbetweenK-12Teachersand
University
449
Leadership and teamwork, then, combine to create
systemic institutional change.
To support the teacher efforts, the school
administration purchased each participating teacher
an iPad Mini along with an Apple TV. This
encouraged the teachers to use their iPads and Apple
TV to connect to the classroom projectors. Having
immediate access to the tool(s) is one of the Ts in
the 4 T’s model. The school’s support by providing
the tool for each participant, was a critical factor in
the progress the teachers were able to make, as was
the time the teachers committed and their work and
support together as a team.
2.3 On the Path to Becoming Digital
Educators
Becoming a digital educator is an evolutionary
process that takes time, teamwork, training, and
tools. The initiative encouraged the participating
teachers to work closely together as a team to
discuss how they would implement the differentiated
instruction in their classroom. They developed an
action plan by continuing the Google Hangout
sessions and sharing ideas of ‘how’ and ‘where’ to
start. The teachers began learning from each other
and scheduled monthly meetings to share their
experiences, talk about their successes and work
through their challenges. The team determined
useful iPad apps, from the pool of applications that
was shared during the workshop, to incorporate in
the classroom. The participating teachers decided
on using the same applications so there would be
continuity among their lessons and the students
would feel more comfortable and not threatened or
challenged by the new technology. The four T’s,
symbiotically integrated together, provided teachers
the opportunity to grow and develop as digital
educators. The committed, sustained leadership of
the school administrators, the university faculty, and
the teacher leaders in the group helped assure that
each of the 4 T’s was provided/managed in a way
that would contribute to the professional
development of the participants.
Comments on a post-training survey confirm the
power of technology professional development
based upon the elements of the 4Ts:
• “I really enjoyed learning from each other and
watching what worked for my colleagues in
their classrooms. I liked the open forum/chat
where we were able to express our ideas. I
enjoyed being exposed to the diversity of
methodologies and having the time to ‘try them
on’ for size.
• “This course was very useful and has helped me
improve my teaching. The apps are a very
useful teaching tool. It also gave me the
opportunity to meet three wonderful ladies who
are experts in their field. More importantly, it
led to the SWITCH group, which is a great
opportunity to meet my colleagues regularly and
exchange information and thoughts regarding
our teaching.”
3 NEXT STEPS
The university education faculty has been invited to
offer the professional development workshop again
during the 2015-2016 academic year to 15 new
participating teachers from the K-12 school in
Southern Europe. With feedback from last year’s
participants to inform their practice, the three
university faculty members have revised/refined the
content of the eight modules to meet the needs of the
participants, with a continued emphasis on the
meaningful use of technology in the classroom. To
build upon and extend the community of practice at
the K-12 school, participants from the first year will
attend each of the eight virtual meetings to share
their own growth and expertise.
Using the 4Ts as a guiding framework, our work
with the K-12 teachers in Southern Europe continues
to offer support for the importance of time, tools,
training, and teamwork in helping educators to
develop the technology knowledge and experience
necessary to facilitate 21
st
century learning.
REFERENCES
An, Y., & Reigeluth, C. (2012). Creating Technology-
Enhanced, Learner-Centered Classrooms: K-12
Teachers' Beliefs, Perceptions, Barriers, and Support
Needs. Journal of Digital Learning In Teacher
Education, 28(2), 54-62.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High
access and low use of technologies in high school
classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-
834.
International Society for Technology in Education.
(2008). National educational technology standards for
teachers (2
nd
ed.). Eugene, OR.
Kozma, R.B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices:
An international study. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 36, 1-4.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological
pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
450
teacher knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108,
1017-1054.
Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht,
J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between
teachers who full integrate computers and teachers
with limited integration. Computers and Education,
51, 1523-1537.
Partnership for 21
st
Century Learning. (2007). Framework
for 21
st
century learning. Retrieved February 9, 2015,
from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org.
Probst, G. & Borzillo, S. (2008). Why communities of
practice succeed and why they fail. European
management journal, 26, 335-347.
Puentedura, R.R. (2013, May 29). SAMR: Moving from
enhancement to transformation [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/
archives/000095.html.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New
York: Free Press.
Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful
learning environments in primary education?
Computers & Education, 44, 343-355.
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2007a). Towards
a typology of computer use in primary education.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 197-206.
Zorfass, J. & Rivero, H. K. (2005) Collaboration is key:
How a community of practice promotes technology
integration. Journal of Special Education Technology,
20(3), 51-67.
ClassroomTechnologyTransformationusingthe4T'sFramework-InternationalPartnershipsbetweenK-12Teachersand
University
451
