The TPACK framework has received a lot of attention lately. For the most part, it has been seen as a form of teacher-knowledge residing within the head of individual teachers. Teaching with technology, however, is a complex task and often requires that teachers tap both social (other people) and cognitive tools (artifacts) successful. In this paper, we challenge the idea of TPACK being resident in just one individual and suggest that in some contexts it may be valuable to consider the idea of distributed TPACK. According to this approach TPACK may be conceptualized as being distributed across individuals (teachers, technologists, students) and artifacts (websites, lesson plans, books, software etc.). We build our argument based on, (a) distributed cognition theory; (b) revisiting prior research; and (c) evidence from two large-scale technology-based educational projects initiated by the Politecnico di Milano. We end with recommendations for future research and practice.

1. Distributed TPACK:
Going Beyond Knowledge in the
Head
Nicoletta Di Blas
Paolo Paolini
Sandra Sawaya
Punya Mishra
1

2. TPACK
2

3. Though the TPACK framework has been
typically seen as being resident in individual
teacher’s head, the truth of the matter is
that, in most teaching contexts, teachers
seldom work independently.
Teachers immerse themselves within a
system of external aids.
3

4. learner
s
online
resources
textbooks
other teachers
computing devices and
software
4

5. Distributed TPACK
5

6. 6

7. Where does the idea of Distributed
TPACK come from?
• Distributed cognition challenges the idea
that cognition is centralized within an
individual’s head.
• When performing a certain task, an
individual is part of a performance system
alongside other individuals.
7

8. Distributed TPACK in Prior
Research
• Koehler et al. (2007)
– Quantitative discourse analysis of two teams
designing an online course.
– As conversations moved on, segments
related to content, pedagogy, and technology,
were distributed quite evenly across the
members of the group.
– “these three components seem to be not only
more integrated at a group level, but also
within the individuals” (p. 753).
8

9. Representation of the coded conversation of the
course. Line segments represent topical
threads.
Koehler et al. (2007)
9

10. Distributed TPACK in Prior
Research
• Benson and Ward (2013)
– Thematic content analysis of data from three
faculty member who successfully taught
online.
– Despite their success, none of the teachers
exhibited an equal distribution of the three
knowledge domains and as such had an
unbalanced TPACK profiles.
10

11. Example of the uneven distribution of the three
knowledge domains.
Benson and Ward (2013)
11

12. Evidence in Current Research: Case
#1
• HOC-LAB: 2002-2009: a number of
programs based on Multi-Users Virtual
Environments (MUVE)
• More than 9,000 students (aged 12 to 18),
from 18 European countries, Israel and the
USA
12

13. 13

14. Case #1: Interesting Finding
• Even though teachers were successful in
implementing the projects, and
• the students benefited from the learning
experiences,
• the teachers often lacked sufficient prior
knowledge regarding the content that they
needed to teach and the technology they
needed to use.
14

15. Case #1: Who did what?
• TEACHERS
– orchestrated all the operations
– checked that all activities were done in due time
– checked their students’ behavior
• STUDENTS
– managed most of the technical activities (avatars,
games, HTML presentations…)
– studied background materials
– completed the homework, the class’ presentations…
– interacted with remote peers (chat, forum, mail…)
15

16. Case #1: Who did what?
• OTHERS
– e.g., colleagues, technical staff, families
– provided organizational support (e.g. additional hours)
– provided technical support (setting of the lab the day
before)
– were supportive and collaborative in many ways (e.g. as
content providers)
• DESIGNERS
– provided the technical environment and the instructions
to use it
– provided the basic pedagogical implementation
– provided the background material
16

17. Case #1: Case for Distributed TPACK
TECHNOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE
– distributed among teachers, technical staff,
and students
– 40% of the teachers claimed to use a
computer almost every day; while 13.3% used
it less than once a week
– “The installation of the environment was done
by my colleague, the French teacher,”
17

18. Case #1: Case for Distributed TPACK
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
– passed on from experts through designers to
teachers and students
– contribution by both local experts and students
– “A year after participating in the project [SEE, the
Dead Sea Scrolls], I took my class to visit a
synagogue: the students were so knowledgeable
about many aspects of Hebrew culture, that the
rabbi asked whether they were Jews!”
18

19. Case #1: Case for Distributed TPACK
PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE
– in the head of the teacher
– contribution from the designers who provided
an overall project implementation schema
19

20. Evidence in Current Research: Case
#2
• HOC-LAB: From 2006, a national (and
from this year international) competition
with multimedia storytelling
• More than 26,000 students (aged 4-18)
• More than 1000 stories created
20

21. 21

22. Case #2: Who did what?
• TEACHERS
– orchestrate all the operations
– check that all activities are done well and in due time
• STUDENTS
– manage most of the technical activities (scanning of
drawings, audio editing, image editing…)
– desk research
– design a multimedia story
– create multimedia content
22

23. Case #2: Who did what?
• OTHERS
– colleagues, technical staff, families
– provide organizational support (e.g. additional hours)
– provide technical support (setting of the lab the day
before)
– are supportive and collaborative in many ways (e.g. as
content providers)
• DESIGNERS
– provide the technical environment and the instructions
to use it
– provide the basic pedagogical implementation (how to
create a story)
23

24. Case #2: Case for Distributed TPACK
TECHNOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE
– distributed among teachers, technical staff, and students
– the overall technology knowledge of the teachers was
poor; 59.1% rated their ability in using technologies as so
and so
– “I did not have any personal experience in writing
multimedia narratives. This fact, instead of being a
negative factor, made the activity nicer and more
interesting. It created new roles: in general I teach
philosophy and students ask questions. In this
experience, instead, I was placed at the same level as the
students.”
24

25. Case #2: Case for Distributed TPACK
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
– retrieved by teachers and students from various
sources;
– contribution from institutions (e.g. museums) and
relatives
25

26. Case #2: Case for Distributed TPACK
PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE
– in the head of the teacher
– contribution from the designers who provide an
overall schema on how to create a story
– “Even the rigidity of the format, counting words,
counting images… was helpful in organizing the work.
[The students] started writing long texts, but they
realized by themselves that they need to shorten
them.“
26

27. In conclusion,
• An intellectual partnership is created
between the users (teachers, students,
colleagues, families, external “helpers”….)
and the technology.
• Cognitive functions are distributed
amongst them.
27

28. In conclusion,
• Distributed TPACK suggests that teaching
expertise and knowledge can be
differentially distributed between the
various social and cognitive tools.
• TPACK is dynamic and the roles played by
individuals are not pre-defined but rather
negotiated and discovered.
28

29. Relevance of Distributed
TPACK
• FOR RESEARCH
– investigation of the change in TPACK for
teachers and students before and after the
experience (dynamic nature of TPACK)
• FOR PRACTICE
– in teachers’ training
– in ICT based educational experiences’ design
29

30. Thank you!
• Nicoletta Di Blas nicoletta.diblas@polimi.it
• Paolo Paolini paolo.paolini@polimi.it
• Sandra Sawaya sawayasa@msu.edu
• Punya Mishra punya@msu.edu
• MUVEs program
– www.learningateurope.net
• Digital storytelling competition:
– www.policulturainternational.net
– www.policulturaportal.it/eng
30