Developing Teachers' Contextual Knowledge and TPACK in a Pedagogical Change Laboratory

PREPRINT DOI: 10.4324/9781032635194-5 4 Developing Teachers’ Contextual Knowledge and TPACK in a Pedagogical Change Laboratory Caroline Duret and Margarida Romero INTRODUCTION In the pursuit of effective technology integration, teachers should engage in the interplay of diverse knowledge related to technology, pedagogy, and disciplinary content while taking into account their specific context, namely the contextual factors unique to their educational environment (Brianza et al., 2022; Mishra & Warr, 2021). The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Mishra et al., 2023; Zhang & Tang, 2021) addresses the intersections of technology, pedagogy, and content required for effectively developing technology-enhanced learning activities (TEL) within the complex context in which teaching and learning take place (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Rosenberg & Koehler, 2015). The learning by design (LBD) approach (Koehler, 2005; Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Koehler et al., 2007) is widely recognized and used to foster teachers’ development of TPACK (Phillips, 2016; Voogt et al., 2016; Warr & Mishra, 2023; Yeh et al., 2021). In LBD, teachers are expected to actively learn to blend their understanding of technology, teaching methods, and subject matter in order to create meaningful and engaging learning experiences in ways that are appropriate to the specific parameters of their context (Koehler & Mishra, 2008). Though context has been described as a core element of the framework (Angeli & Valanides, 2005, 2009; Harris & Hofer, 2017; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; PorrasHernández & Salinas-Amescua, 2013), it appears to remain an underand discordantly represented construct in TPACK research (Brianza et al., 2022; Rosenberg & Koehler, 2015). According to Mishra (2019), this is due to a semantic inconsistency in the canonical TPACK diagram, which he proposes to address by upgrading context to contextual knowledge (XK). XK is teachers’ knowledge of the context that they “must possess to integrate technology in teaching” from “awareness of available technologies”, to “knowledge of the school, district, state, or national policies they operate within” (p. 76). From an interventionist perspective (Gutiérrez et al., 2016), we consider that XK is not only something to be studied in TPACK research but “something that we (as teacher educators) can act on, change, and help teachers develop” (Mishra, 2019, p. 76). Our purpose is to investigate how in-service teachers can develop their XK through a teacher training intervention using the synergistic approaches of expansive learning (Engeström, 2015) and LBD (Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Voogt et al., 2015). To this end, we developed a formative intervention (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013), derived from the Change Laboratory PREPRINT 62 HANDBOOK OF TPACK FOR EDUCATORS interventions (Sannino & Engeström, 2017), and situated within the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) perspective. This intervention, called the pedagogical change laboratory (PCL), consists of a two-and-a-half-day workshop that assists teachers in co-designing new TEL scenarios (Duret & Romero, 2022) to transform their activity systems and change their practices. Taking expansive learning actions (Engeström, 2015; Sannino & Engeström, 2017), teachers examine their educational context from a systemic perspective to identify the pedagogical and didactic challenges that the TEL scenarios will aim to address. A central premise of our approach is that the co-design of TEL scenarios, as an element incorporated into an expansive learning cycle, supports LBD and assists teachers in developing their XK and TPACK. This chapter aims to study how teachers mobilize their XK during the PCL. It is divided into three main sections. Adopting a conceptual perspective, we first present the formative intervention we designed by combining CHAT interventionist methodology and the LBD approach. It is followed by an empirical analysis of the XK mobilized by teachers in the PCL. In the final section, we discuss the findings and highlight the most important ones, some of which have specific implications for teacher education research and practice. PEDAGOGICAL CHANGE LABORATORY AS AN XTPACK INTERVENTION This section outlines the conceptual underpinnings that have guided the design of the PCL as a TPACK professional development intervention. We first discuss expansive learning in connection with LBD to achieve this objective. Then, we expose how we have adapted the traditional Change Laboratory to turn it into a formative intervention likely to support teachers’ contextual knowledge (XK) and TPACK. Finally, we discuss the challenge of grasping the intricacy of XK in the context of the teachers’ learning design activity, as well as how cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) is likely to provide a conceptual and methodological framework for both analysis and development of XK. Combining Expansive Learning and Learning by Design Integration of digital technology and practices into teaching and learning is a complex and ongoing process of systemic change (Hauge, 2016; Kirschner, 2015; Pettersson, 2021; Reinius et al., 2022; Scherer et al., 2019; Timotheou et al., 2023). It both necessitates and results in the transformation of the teaching-learning activity (Laferrière et al., 2013; Lund & Hauge, 2011; Ritella & Hakkarainen, 2012; Virkkunen, 2006; Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). However, “teacher change cannot be achieved merely through direct instruction” (Koehler & Mishra, 2005, p. 99). Indeed, when it comes to transforming activity systems, “traditional modes of learning are not enough” because “nobody knows exactly what needs to be learned” (Engeström & Sannino, 2010, p. 3). In other words, if teachers have to learn how to transform their activity system and practices, it is not a question of dealing with “tasks in which the contents to be learned are well known ahead of time” (Rantavuori et al., 2016, p. 3). It is about creating new knowledge and new practices adapted to their specific context. Expansive learning (Engeström, 2015) offers a response to this kind of challenge. It is a type of learning in which learners “construct a new object and concept for their collective PREPRINT TEACHERS’ CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND TPACK 63 activity and implement this new object and concept in practice” (Engeström & Sannino, 2010, p. 2). It relies on an expansive visibilization process (Engeström, 2018), which consists of “making troubles, contradictions, future visions, and novel solutions […] visible, so that the practitioners could transform their activity in conceptually mastered and practical” (p. 198). It proposes seven steps consisting of epistemic actions: questioning, analyzing, modeling, examining, implementing, reflecting, and consolidating. The goal is to make systemic tensions and contradictions visible so that participants can not only make sense of the disturbances they experience in their daily practices but also commit to transforming their activity system by identifying the future direction they wish to take. These expansive learning actions, based on a systemic approach, offer teachers the opportunity to “navigate the necessarily complex interplay between tools, artifacts, individuals, and contexts” (p. 99), which Koehler and Mishra (2005) call for through the LBD approach. Indeed, by visibilizing the salient elements of their activity system in order to redesign it, teachers are actively encouraged to mobilize and develop their XK, which can be fruitfully used to inform their decisions when co-designing new TEL scenarios. Based on these prior points, we consider the potential of linking these two approaches— expansive learning and LBD—as an avenue for developing teachers’ XK and TPACK. This is what we propose in the PCL, a formative intervention based on the Change Laboratory (CL) methodology. From Change Laboratory to Pedagogical Change Laboratory The theory of expansive learning is at the heart of a formative intervention toolkit called the Change Laboratory (Engeström, 2020; Engeström et al., 2013), an interventionist approach conducted within the framework of CHAT (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). With the support of the researcher-interventionist, participants are encouraged to collectively confront their problematic conditions and break away from them by designing a new concept for their activity system that is not known in advance by the researcher (Engeström, 2011; Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013) and that they implement in practice (Engeström & Sannino, 2010; Hopwood & Sannino, 2023). The CL typically consists of five to ten consecutive two-hour sessions, often with follow-up sessions scheduled after several months (Engeström, 2011). CL methodology (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013) has an interesting point of convergence with the LBD approach (Koehler, 2005; Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Koehler et al., 2007). They are both defined as a collective endeavor where participants, i.e., teachers, collaboratively focus on authentic problems of practice (Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Mishra & Koehler, 2003; Yeh et al., 2021). This prompted us to combine these two approaches into the formative intervention we called the PCL. The PCL is based on the same epistemological principles as the CL. It uses the principle of double stimulation, a mechanism to intentionally overcome a conflicting situation, and the theory of expansive learning (Engeström, 2020; Sannino & Engeström, 2017). It engages teachers in a process of recognizing and analyzing their problematic situation with the aim of breaking out of it and concretely changing their practices. The PCL is a variation of the CL (Engeström, 2011) that does not strictly replicate the traditional methodology. On the one hand, it proposes a different time format in order to better fit the ecological requirements of in-service teachers. Additionally, which is of PREPRINT 64 HANDBOOK OF TPACK FOR EDUCATORS particular interest in this study, unlike the traditional CL, the PCL has been specifically designed so that teachers can take full advantage of the digital technologies available in their environment. By combining the LBD approach with double stimulation and expansive learning, the PCL enables teachers to co-design new TEL scenarios based on a systemic analysis of their activity system, with the aim of transforming their practices. In other words, mobilizing CHAT methodology is intended to foster both contextual analysis (Nguyen et al., 2022) and intentional change (Mishra & Warr, 2021) within an LBD approach. Learning Design and Contextual Knowledge Within a Chat Perspective Learning design is a complex activity that has been studied from a diversity of epistemological and methodological perspectives (Duret & Romero, 2022; Koehler, 2005; Laurillard et al., 2013; Maina et al., 2015; Schön, 1987; Tricot & Musial, 2020). One of the most significant challenges in learning design is the complexity that arises from the incorporation of contextual factors (Mishra & Warr, 2021). Indeed, learning design goes beyond mere generic instances of the prescribed curriculum to tailor learning activities to the needs of the learners within a given context. In this regard, we note the choice of the acronym XK to represent teachers’ contextual knowledge in TPACK (Mishra, 2019). As the author indicates, contextual knowledge is highly variable, making the letter X especially suitable. The five spaces for design in education (Mishra & Warr, 2021)—artifacts, processes, experiences, systems, and culture—emphasize the importance of teachers designing from a broad systemic perspective and highlight how critical it is to articulate different levels of contextual knowledge in TEL design. The key aspect in TEL design is teachers’ coordinated mobilization of TPACK and XK. Therefore, it is crucial that teachers are empowered to effectively mobilize their contextual knowledge in TPACK professional development. CHAT, which provides methodological tools for systemic analysis and transformation, offers teachers the opportunity to transform their practices by drawing on their contextual knowledge. In CHAT, “activity itself is the context” (Nardi, 1996, p. 73), and human actions exist only in relation to the context (Postholm, 2015). Adopting this perspective, teaching|learning activity is a complex system that “weaves together its own dynamic context” (Engeström & Sannino, 2021, p. 2) and involves multiple interacting components, including digital technologies (Figure 4.1). To us, it seems that adopting a CHAT perspective in TEL design is well-aligned with Koehler and Mishra’s view of TPACK, who highlight the fact that “teachers constantly negotiate a balance between technology, pedagogy, and content in ways that are appropriate to the specific parameters of an ever-changing educational context [emphasis added]” (Koehler & Mishra, 2008, p. 21). To fully enact TPACK, which does not exist in a vacuum (Mishra & Warr, 2021), teachers should be effectively encouraged to draw on their contextual knowledge (Mishra, 2019). We assume that one way to accomplish this could be to help teachers take into account their activity system as a complex whole context within which their actions are embedded. From this standpoint, our approach appears to be consistent with Brianza et al.’s view of XK (2022). Drawing upon the findings of their systematic literature review, they propose to define contextual knowledge as the teacher’s understanding of the factors co-occurring at different levels and dimensions and “of how they reciprocally influence each other within PREPRINT TEACHERS’ CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND TPACK 65 this shared setting” (p. 731). This leads us to draw parallels between the two frameworks, i.e., between the ConteXTPACK framework (Brianza et al., 2022), as shown in Figure 4.2, and the Activity Theory Framework (Figure 4.1). Analyzing the ConteXTPACK (XTPACK) with a systemic cultural-historical lens reveals that most of the contextual elements identified by Brianza et al. (2022) can be associated with components of the activity system triangle (Figure 4.3). The transposition of the XTPACK elements into the activity theory model allows us to observe how the XTPACK can be instantiated as a dynamic activity system. Studying XTPACK and XK through the CHAT perspective aligns with Mishra and Warr’s (2021) view, which highlights the significant advantages for teachers in comprehending broader systemic and cultural influences and their mechanisms. Having this comprehension allows teachers to leverage these dynamics effectively for their own and their students’ benefit. This view is closely related to that of the PCL. FIGURE 4.1 The model of human activity adapted to our study of teachers’ activity systems, based on Engeström and Sannino (2010). Note: “Subject [1] refers to the individual or subgroup whose position and point of view are chosen as the perspective of the analysis. Object [2] refers to the ‘raw material’ or ‘problem space’ at which the activity is directed. The object is turned into outcomes with the help of instruments, that is, tools and signs [3]. Community [4] comprises individuals and subgroups who share the same general object. Division of labor [5] refers to the horizontal division of tasks and the vertical division of power and status. Finally, rules [6] refer to the explicit and implicit regulations, norms, conventions, and standards that constrain actions within the activity system” (Engeström & Sannino, 2010, p. 6). PREPRINT 66 HANDBOOK OF TPACK FOR EDUCATORS Designing a Formative Intervention Based on XTPACK Teachers’ TPACK professional development should be highly “related to the socio-cultural context of teaching and learning, embracing the educational setting as a situated complex activity system” (Augustsson, 2020, p. 20). The PCL is then to be considered a collective XTPACK professional learning and development where teachers are invited to focus on historical and contextual factors that shape their activity system (Kajamaa and Hyrkkö, 2022). The goal is that teachers recognize their actual pedagogical problems and conceptualize them as stemming from systemic contradictions in order to break away from their problematic situation. Teachers are engaged in a creative, collaborative problem-solving process through a set of learning actions, including co-designing new TEL scenarios. In the PCL, teachers are put in a “role of generating knowledge, not just consuming it” (Koehler and Mishra, 2005, p. 99) because they are involved in a creative and transformative process of both modeling a new concept for their activity system and LBD how to integrate digital technology and practices into teaching and learning. Research Objectives As a consequence of previous considerations, we assume that in the PCL, teachers’ collective reflection and design, which is highly situated, require the mobilization of contextual knowledge elements. These are necessary for the design of new TEL scenarios that serve as FIGURE 4.2 Networked contextual and contextualized knowledge forming XTPACK (Brianza et al., 2022, p. 730). PREPRINT TEACHERS’ CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND TPACK 67 FIGURE 4.3 Transposition of the XTPACK elements (Brianza et al., 2022) into the activity theory model (Engeström, 2015; Engeström and Sannino, 2010). PREPRINT 68 HANDBOOK OF TPACK FOR EDUCATORS instruments to transform teaching and learning. This study aims to identify the mobilization of contextual knowledge (XK) elements in teachers’ discourse during the PCL. The primary research question is, “How does the PCL support the mobilization of teachers’ contextual knowledge?”. Two sub-questions guide the data analysis: RQ1. What specific XK dimensions and levels are manifested within the teacher team’s discussions? RQ2. How is contextual knowledge enacted in the cycle of expansive learning? METHODOLOGY This section outlines the methodology adopted to conduct an empirical analysis of teachers’ contextual knowledge (XK) during the PCL. Methodological Approach: A Qualitative Case Study To investigate teachers’ development of XK in the PCL, we chose a qualitative case study (Merriam, 2009; Stake, 2005; Yin, 2009) which consists of an in-depth examination of a specific phenomenon as it has unfolded in a specific situation (Albarello, 2022). Below, we detail the three components that define the case: the setting and participants, XK elements for data collection, and selected PCL sessions. Settings and Participants The study takes place in a French international school in Switzerland, which adheres to the curricula of the French Ministry of Education. The school serves approximately 1150 students in grades 1–12 and employs 90 teachers. The current case study concerns four participants. They are all lower and upper secondary teachers of French. When the PCL started in spring 2023, each of them had been a teacher for over 20 years (m = 29; sd = 3.5). Three of them had been at the school for nine to sixteen years. One of them had less than a year of experience there (m = 9.42; sd = 6.48), having joined at the start of the academic school year. In spring 2023, the first three had been using digital technologies in their teaching practices for over four years, while the newly hired teacher was only beginning to integrate digital technologies into the classroom. During the preparation phase of the PCL, teachers collectively expressed their intentions to address didactic and pedagogical issues related to teaching patrimonial literature. To accomplish this, they intended to take full advantage of the digital technologies at their disposal. This permitted the researcher-interventionist to delineate the activity system that would be the object of the transformational process—teaching French literature—and to design a specific formative intervention—the PCL—where co-design of TEL scenarios plays an important role. Data Collection and Stepwise Procedures of Analysis The raw data for this study consist of video recordings of the first day of the PCL. The recorded material has a total length of 434 minutes and was manually transcribed verbatim. We first identified three sequences of analysis based on the PCL methodological phases (described in the next section). Then, within each of the three sequences of analysis, topical episodes PREPRINT TEACHERS’ CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND TPACK 69 were identified according to their substantive contents. We took speaking turns as the unit of analysis, and within each episode, all the speaking turns were analyzed. In total, we analyzed 31 episodes and 1466 speaking turns. Deductive, inductive, and abductive approaches to coding were applied in a combinatorial and recursive process (Moscoso, 2019). Coding Scheme Development The data was processed in four stages. In the first step, we have compiled an a priori list of six categories based on the ConteXTPACK framework from Brianza et al. (2022), which consists of three dimensions (social, content, and resources) and three levels (immediate, proximal, and distal) (Figure 4.4). It resulted in a coding scheme with six categories (Table 4.1). In the second step, once we had identified excerpts with contextual knowledge elements in both dimensions and levels, we grouped the XK elements according to the themes observable in each excerpt. This resulted in a first-rank sub-categorization in each of the three dimensions (Table 4.2). In the third step, we found second-rank subcategories, especially when teachers used enough detailed and extensive contextual knowledge. In some first-rank subcategories, we did not find enough elements to define new FIGURE 4.4 Identification of six categories based on the ConteXTPACK, adapted from Brianza et al. (2022). PREPRINT 76 HANDBOOK OF TPACK FOR EDUCATORS Second-Rank Subcategories Relating to Students (XSK-S) Regarding teachers’ contextual knowledge of students specifically (Figure 4.11), the most frequently cited items are related to: students’ preferences and pleasure (n = 7), students’ knowledge (n = 5), and students’ relationship to learning (n = 5). We note that these three contextual knowledge elements are closely linked to the pedagogical and didactic problems that teachers set themselves to address in the PCL through the co-design of new TEL scenarios. Indeed, during visibilization3, right after recognizing the disturbances in their daily practices and analyzing their activity system, and before the first co-design session, the teachers explicitly stated their intention to design a new TEL scenario aimed at changing students’ relationship to learning literature by increasing their engagement and pleasure in school reading. Second-Rank Subcategories Relating to Parents (XSK.P) Regarding contextual knowledge about parents (n = 5), two of the occurrences concern the teacher who had arrived at the school only six months earlier. She described some of the FIGURE 4.11 Distribution of cited items in second-rank subcategories relating to students. FIGURE 4.10 Second-Rank subcategories in the social dimension. PREPRINT TEACHERS’ CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND TPACK 77 difficulties she had faced, especially concerning the use of digital tablets. Implicitly, her remarks revealed that these difficulties were specifically caused by her lack of contextual knowledge about parents. Although the school is running a one-to-one project, parents generally expect lessons to be written in the student’s notebook. But this teacher, thinking she was doing the right thing, had the pupils write their lessons on their tablets, which irritated some parents. Second-Rank Subcategories Relating to Peer Teachers (XSK.T) In teachers’ discourse, XK about peer teachers (n = 2) is linked to what motivates the participants in the PCL, namely, increasing students’ engagement and enjoyment in learning literature. Indeed, contextual knowledge elements about peer teachers in the school are mentioned when the participants evoke their desire to decompartmentalize the teaching and learning of literature through transdisciplinary activities. RQ1.2.2 Contextual Content Knowledge Distribution of Levels When teachers mobilize contextual knowledge in the content dimension (XCK), it is mainly at the distal level (immediate [IXK] n = 6; proximal [PXK] n = 1; distal [DXK] n = 14). The results for the subcategories, which we present below, shed light on the reasons why contextual knowledge in the content dimension is mainly located at the distal level. First-Rank Subcategories The first-rank subcategories of contextual knowledge elements in the content dimension are: educational programs (n = 14), learning tasks (n = 6), and school curriculum (n = 1). The findings for the content dimension demonstrate that the majority of the contextual knowledge elements that the teachers mobilized are associated with the first-rank subcategory “educational programs”, which is located at the distal level (Figure 4.12). These results FIGURE 4.12 Contextual knowledge elements mobilized in the content dimension (XCK): First-Rank subcategories and distribution according to the three levels. PREPRINT 78 HANDBOOK OF TPACK FOR EDUCATORS are consistent with the situation analyzed by the teachers during the PCL. Indeed, from the outset, they noted a major and growing tension between the national curriculum and students’ pleasure in school reading. This corresponds to a systemic contradiction between two components in their activity system, namely the rules and the object (see Figure 4.1). As a result, the educational programs play an important role in their concerns, and this is also why teachers, in visibilization3, decided to co-design new TEL scenarios aimed at increasing students’ pleasure in school reading while respecting the imposed curriculum. Second-Rank Subcategories We found second-rank subcategories in relation to educational programs and learning tasks (Figure 4.13). The two most represented second-rank subcategories in our results are consistent with teachers’ decisions at the end of visibilization2, as they determined that their new TEL scenarios should support the comprehension and interpretation of literary texts (n = 5) while reconciling the pleasure in school reading with the requirements of the national curricula (n = 10). RQ1.2.3 Contextual Resources Knowledge During the first day of the PCL, contextual knowledge in the resources dimension is less mobilized than in the other two dimensions. As indicated in the methodology section, we only identified first-rank subcategories in the resources dimension. Distribution of Levels When teachers mobilize contextual knowledge in the resources dimension (XRK), it is mainly at the immediate and proximal levels (immediate [IXK] n = 5; proximal [PXK] n = 4; distal [DXK] n = 1). FIGURE 4.13 Second-Rank subcategories in the content dimension. PREPRINT TEACHERS’ CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND TPACK 79 First-Rank Subcategories The first-rank subcategories we have found in the resources dimension (Figure 4.14) are as follows: school digital ecosystem (n = 4), digital technologies (n = 3), teaching and learning material (n = 3). An examination of the excerpts containing these first-rank subcategories reveals two notable observations relating to the school digital ecosystem and digital technologies, which we develop below. Contextual Knowledge About the School Digital Ecosystem (XRK-DE) We found four occurrences of contextual knowledge elements relating to the school digital ecosystem ([XRK-DE] n = 4). In three cases out of four, this concerned the teacher, who had been at the school for less than a year. Her comments reveal a lack of contextual knowledge about the school’s digital ecosystem, which has resulted in disturbances in her daily practice. Contextual Knowledge About Digital Technologies (XRK-DT) An analysis of the teachers’ discourse reveals that the contextual knowledge elements identified in the “digital technologies” category are all about ChatGPT. Teachers always relate these elements to the social dimension (specifically to the students) and to the content dimension (specifically to learning tasks and educational programs). This means that teachers consider ChatGPT as an important contextual element, particularly with regard to their students’ engagement in the learning process and the way students use Generative AI to complete their assigned reading tasks with little effort. Teachers feel that students’ use of ChatGPT does not encourage them to engage in authentic reading of literary texts and notice that it does not seem to have a negative impact on their success in exams, since these consist more of reproducing knowledge than of demonstrating an authentic and personal understanding of literary works. FIGURE 4.14 Contextual knowledge elements mobilized in the resources dimension (XRK): First-Rank subcategories and distribution according to the three levels. PREPRINT 80 HANDBOOK OF TPACK FOR EDUCATORS RQ2.1 Overview of Contextual Knowledge Within the Cycle of Expansive Learning As mentioned above (Figures 4.5–4.7), expansive learning actions are articulated through four visibilization phases. The first day of the PCL, which concerns our study, includes the first two phases and the start of the third one (Figure 4.9). In this section, we present the mobilization of contextual knowledge according to the three visibilization phases. XK is mobilized during the three visibilization phases: visibilization1 (n = 47); visibilization2 (n = 15); and visibilization3 (n = 7). It is at the highest level in visibilization1 (n = 47), where the main expansive learning actions consist of questioning the current situation and analyzing the tensions experienced in daily practice. Focusing primarily on systemic analysis, visibilization2 induces a higher level of conceptual thought and appears to require less mobilization of contextual knowledge elements (n = 15). Visibilization3, which mainly involves modeling novel solutions by co-designing new TEL scenarios, is the phase in which we find the least traces of contextual knowledge in conversations (n = 7). The results for each dimension confirm the previously observed trend, namely a decrease of XK traces between visibilization1 and visibilization3 (Figure 4.15). RQ.2.2 Contextual Knowledge Dimensions in Relation to Expansive Visibilization Phases RQ2.2.1 Contextual Social Knowledge in Each Visibilization Phase As regarding occurrences of contextual social knowledge, we first present the results in the first-rank subcategories (Figure 4.16), then the results in the second-rank subcategories about students (Figure 4.17). First-Rank Subcategories We detail below the first-rank subcategories concerning peer teachers and students. FIGURE 4.15 Contextual knowledge occurrences in each visibilization phase for each dimension. PREPRINT TEACHERS’ CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND TPACK 81 Contextual Knowledge About Peer Teachers in Each Visibilization Phase Contextual knowledge about peer teachers only appears in the first phase (visibilization1, n = 2; visibilization2, n = 0; visibilization3, n = 0). As previously mentioned, participants discussed the value of collaborating with teachers of other subjects to add meaning to learning literature by opening it up to other perspectives. However, noting the numerous organizational obstacles they have already faced, they focused on alternative ways of solving their didactic and pedagogical problems. This avenue for resolving their problems has been abandoned in the visibilization1, the participants will no longer use this contextual element in the following phases. Contextual Knowledge About Students in Each Visibilization Phase As shown in Figure 4.16, contextual knowledge about students (XSK-S) is observed during all the visibilization phases (visibilization1, n = 18; visibilization2, n = 8; visibilization3, n = 3). Importantly, in the social dimension, contextual knowledge about students is the only first-rank subcategory observable during visibilization3. To better understand how XK about students unfolds during the three visibilization phases, we present below the results for second-rank subcategories about students. FIGURE 4.16 First-Rank subcategories in the social dimension for each visibilization phase. FIGURE 4.17 Second-Rank subcategories concerning students for each visibilization phase. PREPRINT 82 HANDBOOK OF TPACK FOR EDUCATORS Second-Rank Subcategories About Students As shown in Figure 4.17, of the second-rank subcategories relating to students, only the “students’ preferences and pleasure” category is observed during the three visibilization phases (visibilization1, n = 2; visibilization2, n = 2; visibilization3, n = 3). Furthermore, it is worth noting that this is the only category observed during visibilization3. RQ2.2.2 Contextual Content Knowledge in Each Visibilization Phase As shown in Figure 4.18, the “educational programs” category is observable in all phases (visibilization1, n = 9; visibilization2, n = 3; visibilization3, n = 2). The “learning tasks” category appears in visibilization1 and visibilization2 (visibilization1, n = 5; visibilization2, n = 1; visibilization3, n = 0). Below, we detail the results for these two categories. We first present the results concerning the “learning tasks” category. We then present the results concerning the “educational programs” category, with a focus on two second-rank subcategories, namely the “national curricula” and “assessment standards”, which are the most frequently cited elements (Figure 4.19). Contextual Knowledge About Learning Tasks in Each Visibilization Phase Contextual knowledge about learning tasks appears in visibilization1 and visibilization2, which focus primarily on questioning current practices and analyzing the activity system. This contextual knowledge element does not appear anymore in visibilization3. Teachers, however, do refer to learning tasks throughout the design process during visibilization3. In this phase, they come up with new learning tasks, and their conversations primarily show the enactment of PCK, TPK, and TPACK rather than the mobilization of contextual knowledge. To illustrate our point, we cite below an excerpt from visibilization3 when teachers co-designed their first new TEL scenario. We note that the conversation focuses on learning tasks and digital technologies, articulating FIGURE 4.18 First-Rank subcategories in the content dimension for each visibilization phase. PREPRINT TEACHERS’ CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND TPACK 83 pedagogical, technological, and content-related issues, demonstrating their TPACK knowledge. P1. We could suggest that they create multimodal productions from a text, for example uh… an advertising poster on a literary work, the creation of a magazine cover on the events of a novel, etc. I don’t know… What else can they do? P2. Fake telephone conversations or fake video conferences… from fictional characters in a novel, from an author… P3. An adaptation of literary extracts into comics or into a short movie? […] P2. And if they use applications on the tablet to carry out these multimodal productions, do we then tell them to make and print QR codes to put them in the paper reading log? In contrast, as shown in the excerpt below, the references to learning tasks in visibilization1 are of a contextual nature. Indeed, the topic at hand was about literary interpretation and reading comprehension. Both of these learning tasks were mentioned when teachers reflected on aspects of students’ knowledge, relationship to learning, and learning difficulties. During visibilization1, teachers mobilized XK elements about learning tasks to understand the pedagogical and didactic difficulties they declared they regularly faced in their teaching practice. P2. I think that misinterpretations and erroneous literary interpretations that students make should always be taken with great kindness and caution because often they have already done something very well. The problem is that they don’t have literary codes. In fact, I think that, with goodwill, they are trying to imitate us. I think that the student who makes fanciful interpretations imitates his teacher […] and then it’s difficult to make them understand why it’s fanciful. P1. Yes, I think they don’t really read the text; it’s the knowledge that they seek to apply rather than letting the text speak. Contextual Knowledge About Educational Programs in Each Visibilization Phase We note that, unlike the other first-rank subcategories relating to the content dimension, contextual knowledge about educational programs is mobilized during the three visibilization FIGURE 4.19 Second-Rank subcategories concerning educational programs. PREPRINT 84 HANDBOOK OF TPACK FOR EDUCATORS phases. This is consistent with teachers’ developmental trajectory throughout the visibilization phases during the first day of PCL. Indeed, as previously stated, the primary issue that teachers have identified and decided to address (visibilization1–visibilization2) through new TEL scenarios (visibilization3) concerns the national curriculum and assessment standards, which over time have steadily reduced the time that they can devote to the pleasure of reading. Figure 4.19 displays the second-rank subcategories of educational programs. Contextual knowledge relating to the national curricula and their evolution over time is observable in all the visibilization phases (visibilization1, n = 7; visibilization2, n = 2; visibilization3, n = 1), and contextual knowledge about assessment standards can be observed in visibilization1 (n = 2) and visibilization3 (n = 1). RQ2.2.3 Contextual Resources Knowledge in Each Visibilization Phase Regarding contextual resources knowledge, we present results in the first-rank categories. As indicated above, no second-rank subcategories have been identified in this dimension during the first day of the PCL. We note that contextual knowledge elements related to resources are mobilized during all the visibilization phases (Figure 4.20). In particular, we present the results concerning digital technologies and the school’s digital ecosystem. Contextual Knowledge About Digital Technologies In each Visibilization Phase Contextual knowledge about digital technologies appears only in visibilization1 (visibilization1, n = 3; visibilization2, n = 0; visibilization3, n = 0). As previously mentioned, teachers referred to students’ use of Chat GPT to carry out reading tasks with little effort. In this phase, contextual knowledge about digital technologies helped question current practices and analyze actual disturbances in teaching and learning literature, which correspond to the first two expansive learning actions in the cycle of expansive learning. In addition, we observe that teachers did refer to digital technologies in visibilization3, FIGURE 4.20 Contextual resource knowledge occurrences in each visibilization phase. PREPRINT TEACHERS’ CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND TPACK 85 but the analysis shows that it is no longer contextual knowledge. During visibilization3, digital technologies are considered by teachers as components of a new TEL scenario to model future practices, and this relates to other types of knowledge such as TCK, TPK, and TPACK. Contextual Knowledge About the School Digital Ecosystem in Each Visibilization Phase Contextual knowledge relating to the school digital ecosystem is mobilized in visibilization1 and visibilization3 (visibilization1 n = 2; visibilization2 n = 0; visibilization3 n = 2). These findings prompt us to make two observations about the relation between this contextual knowledge category and expansive learning actions in visibilization1 and visibilization3. Visibilization1 As previously highlighted, XK about the school digital ecosystem was mobilized in visibilization1 by the teacher, who has only been teaching at this school for a few months. During this phase, none of the other three teachers made any mention of the school’s digital ecosystem. It is worth noting that the newly hired teacher expressed the need to further develop her contextual knowledge about the school’s digital ecosystem while questioning current practices and analyzing disruptions in daily activities. It was through these two expansive learning actions that this teacher was able to recognize the need to develop her XK. Visibilization3 In visibilization3, teachers mobilized their XK relating to the school digital ecosystem as they discussed the technological support they would use to implement a digital reading log. They began by evoking the storage space that students are typically assigned. Then they discussed the technologies available to students, as well as the compatibility of certain technologies with the students’ devices. This prompted them to abandon the idea of using a specific one because there is no tablet application for it. When we read the speaking turns, we noticed that in visibilization3, i.e., the co-design session no. 1, the distinction between XK related to the school digital ecosystem and other types of knowledge in the TPACK framework appears to blur at times. To illustrate our point, we cite the following excerpt. P2. We could also use Genially. P1. Oh no, not Genially! Students hate Genially because it’s not practical on the tablet. It’s great on a computer, but with a tablet, it’s not practical at all. P2. Yes, you’re right, and if we choose Genially, we will have to take the laptop trolley. That is not suitable for a digital reading notebook that we want to use often. Indeed, it is difficult to determine what type of knowledge the mentions of the school digital ecosystem refer to in this excerpt. We hardly discriminate between XK about the school digital ecosystem and TPACK since the discussion focuses on the technological and pedagogical conditions for implementing a digital reading log to teach and learn literature. Based on the XTPACK framework (Brianza et al., 2022), we identify this type of knowledge as contextualized-TPK-related knowledge. PREPRINT 92 HANDBOOK OF TPACK FOR EDUCATORS relevance of combining expansive learning and LBD to support in-service, pre-service, and beginner teachers’ XK. Limitations and Future Directions There are limitations due to the ecological perspective that has been considered in this study. Due to the small number of teachers and the specific context of this study, the results should be cautiously interpreted and transferred with prudence to other situations under similar conditions. Notably, given the unique nature of this study, it is important to consider that our coding scheme based on the XTPACK framework (Brianza et al., 2022) cannot be replicated exactly as it is. It must be modified and adapted to the specific context of the teachers participating in future studies. This is an inherent limitation of empirical research into teachers’ XK in authentic settings. Furthermore, this study has examined how teachers utilized their XK and distinguished between the three phases of expansive visibilization. However, it did not explore in depth how XK was enacted according to each type of expansive learning action. Future research is required to study the development of XK within the cycle of expansive learning actions throughout the entire formative intervention (Augustsson, 2021; Engeström et al., 2013) in order to better investigate how CHAT methodology can be used for XTPACK professional development of teachers in the school workplace (Phillips, 2013). We should also note that this chapter only focuses on the mobilization of XK. While it allowed for some observations regarding the relationship between XK and TPACK in teachers’ conversations, it did not thoroughly investigate this interaction. Future research should consider exploring the enactment of both XK and TPACK in similar settings. Despite the limitations, the proposed PCL intervention and the methodology for analyzing teachers’ XK have significant potential for being replicated in other educational contexts. Both can support teachers in designing TEL scenarios and contribute to advance research on the enactment of XK. CONCLUSION The study’s findings suggest that engaging teachers in an expansive visibilization process can encourage the development of their XK, which in turn contributes to their transformative process. The main expansive learning actions in the first two visibilization phases— questioning and analyzing existing practices both at the action and systemic levels—are likely to help teachers enact significant contextual knowledge elements, which, in turn, guide their design decisions. As regards the enactment of XK and teachers’ developmental trajectory during the PCL, it appears that XK has evolved into XTPACK, especially when teachers were engaged in co-designing a new TEL scenario to transform their practices. It seems that the PCL, as a collective process of professional development, is likely to foster transformative agency by incorporating the co-design of TEL scenarios within an expansive learning cycle. It empowers teachers to reshape their instructional activity system through the enactment of their XK and TPACK. REFERENCES Albarello, L. (2022). Chapitre 2. L’étude de cas: Pertinence et validité. In Enquêter dans les métiers de l’humain, Vol. 2e éd. (pp. 27–36). Éditions Raison et Passions. https://doi.org/10.3917/rp.alber.2022.03.0027 Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: An instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00135.x PREPRINT TEACHERS’ CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND TPACK 93 Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006 Augustsson, D. (2020). Expansive design for teachers: An activity theoretical approach to design and work integrated learning [Högskolan Väst]. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hv:diva-15829 Augustsson, D. (2021). Expansive learning in a change laboratory intervention for teachers. Journal of Educational Change, 22(4), 475–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09404-0 Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2015). Exploring teachers’ use of TPACK in design talk: The collaborative design of technology-rich early literacy activities, Computers & Education, 82, 250–262, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compedu.2014.11.010 Brianza, E., Schmid, M., Tondeur, J., & Petko, D. (2022). Situating TPACK: A systematic literature review of context as a domain of knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 22(4), 707–753. Duret, C., & Romero, M. (2022). L’activité de conception de scénarios pédagogiques intégrant le numérique comme démarche créative dans la formation des enseignants. Revue Internationale Du CRIRES: Innover Dans La Tradition De Vygotsky/CRI_SAS International Journal: Vygotsky’s Heritage: Innovation in Education, 6(3), 46–65. https://doi. org/10.51657/ric.v6i2.51582 Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598–628. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0959354311419252 Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding. Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (Éd.). (2018). Expansive visibilization of medical work. In Expertise in transition: expansive learning in medical work (pp. 167–199). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139023009.009 Engeström, Y. (2020). Ascending from the abstract to the concrete as a principle of expansive learning. Psychological Science and Education, 25(5), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2020250503 Engeström, Y., Rantavuori, J., & Kerosuo, H. (2013). Expansive learning in a library: Actions, cycles and deviations from instructional intentions. Vocations and Learning, 6(1), 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-012-9089-6 Engeström, Y., Rantavuori, P., Ruutu, P., & Tapola-Haapala, M. (2022). The hybridisation of adolescents’ worlds as a source of developmental tensions: A study of discursive manifestations of contradictions. Educational Review, 0(0), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2033704 Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002 Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2021). From mediated actions to heterogenous coalitions: Four generations of activitytheoretical studies of work and learning. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 28(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039 .2020.1806328 Engeström, Y., Sannino, A., & Virkkunen, J. (2014). On the methodological demands of formative interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.891868 Gutiérrez, K. D., Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2016). Expanding educational research and interventionist methodologies. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1183347 Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2017). “TPACK stories”: schools and school districts repurposing a theoretical construct for technology-related professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(1–2), 1–15. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1295408 Hauge, T. E. (2016). On the Life of ICT and School Leadership in a Large-Scale Reform Movement (p. 97–115). https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-648-4_6 Hill, J. E., & Uribe-Florez, L. (2020). Understanding secondary school Teachers’ TPACK and technology implementation in mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Technology in Education, 3(1), 1–13. https://eric. ed.gov/?id=EJ1264156 Hopwood, N., & Sannino, A. (2023). Motives, mediation and motion: Towards an inherently learningand developmentorientated perspective on agency. In A. Sannino & N. Hopwood (Éds.), Agency and transformation: motives, mediation, and motion (p. 1–34). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009153799.002 Kajamaa, A., & Hyrkkö, S. (2022). Change laboratory method for facilitating transformative agency and collective professional learning – Case from a Finnish elementary school. In M. Goller, E. Kyndt, S. Paloniemi, & C. Damşa (Éds.), Methods for researching professional learning and development: challenges, applications and empirical illustrations (p. 535–556). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08518-5_24 Kelly, M. (2008). Incorporating Context Into TPCK-Based Instructional Design. 5257–5262. https://www.learntechlib. org/primary/p/28114/ Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Do we need teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning? Instructional Science, 43(2), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9346-9 Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Tpck) for Educators. https://philpapers.org/rec/TECHOT Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/29544/ PREPRINT 94 HANDBOOK OF TPACK FOR EDUCATORS Koehler, M. J. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152. https://doi. org/10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compedu.2005.11.012 Koh, J. H. L. (2019). TPACK design scaffolds for supporting teacher pedagogical change. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(3), 577–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9627-5 Laferrière, T., Hamel, C., & Searson, M. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of technology integration in educational settings: A case study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12034 Laurillard, D., Charlton, P., Craft, B., Dimakopoulos, D., Ljubojevic, D., Magoulas, G., Masterman, E., Pujadas, R., Whitley, E., & Whittlestone, a (2013). A constructionist learning environment for teachers to model learning designs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00458.x Lund, A., & Hauge, T. E. (2011). Designs for teaching and learning in technology-rich learning environments, Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6, 258–272, https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2011-04-05 Maina, M., Craft, B., & Mor, Y.(Eds.) (2015). The art & science of learning design. Sense Publishers. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation (2 ed.). Jossey-Bass. Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611 Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2003). Not « what » but « how »: Becoming design-wise about educational technology. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x Mishra, P., & Warr, M. (2021). Contextualizing TPACK within systems and cultures of practice, Computers in Human Behavior, 117, 106673, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106673 Mishra, P., Warr, M., & Islam, R. (2023). TPACK in the age of ChatGPT and generative AI. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 39(4), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2023.2247480 Moscoso, J. N. (2019). Abductive reasoning: A contribution to knowledge creation in education, Cadernos De Pesquisa, 49, 308–329, https://doi.org/10.1590/198053145255 Nardi, B. A. (1996). Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction. MIT Press. Nguyen, G. N. H., & Bower, M. (2018). Novice teacher technology-enhanced learning design practices: The case of the silent pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(6), 1027–1043. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12681 Nguyen, G. N. H., Bower, M., & Stevenson, M. (2022). The discourse of design: Patterns of TPACK contribution during pre-service teacher learning design conversations. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 8235–8264. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10932-w Pareto, L., & Willermark, S. (2019). TPACK in situ: A design-based approach supporting professional development in practice. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(5), 1186–1226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118783180 Pettersson, F. (2021). Understanding digitalization and educational change in school by means of activity theory and the levels of learning concept. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10639-020-10239-8 Phillips, M. (2013). Investigating in-service teachers’ workplace TPACK development. Australian Educational Computing, 28(2). http://journal.acce.edu.au/index.php/AEC/article/view/23 Phillips, M. (2016). Re-contextualising tpack: Exploring teachers’ (non-)use of digital technologies. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(5), 555–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2015.1124803 Porras-Hernández, L. H., & Salinas-Amescua, B. (2013). Strengthening tpack: A broader notion of context and the use of Teacher’s narratives to reveal knowledge construction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.48.2.f Postholm, M. B. (2015). Methodologies in Cultural–Historical activity theory: The example of school-based development. Educational Research, 57(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2014.983723 Rantavuori, J., Engeström, Y., & Lipponen, L. (2016). Learning actions, objects and types of interaction: A methodological analysis of expansive learning among pre-service teachers, FRONTLINE LEARNING RESEARCH, 4, 1–27, https://doi. org/10.14786/flr.v4i3.174 Reinius, H., Kaukinen, I., Korhonen, T., Juuti, K., & Hakkarainen, K. (2022). Teachers as transformative agents in changing school culture, Teaching and Teacher Education, 120, 103888, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103888 Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Instrumental genesis in technology-mediated learning: From double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9144-1 Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. (2015). Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 186–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523. 2015.1052663 PREPRINT TEACHERS’ CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND TPACK 95 Sannino, A. (2015). The principle of double stimulation: A path to volitional action, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.01.001 Sannino, A., & Engeström, Y. (2017). Co-generation of societally impactful knowledge in change laboratories. Management Learning, 48(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507616671285 Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education, Computers & Education, 128, 13–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009 Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions (p. xvii, 355). Jossey-Bass. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed (pp. 443–466). Sage Publications Ltd. Timotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y., Sobrino, S. V., Giannoutsou, N., Cachia, R., Monés, A. M., & Ioannou, A. (2023). Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools’ digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 6695–6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10639-022-11431-8 Tricot, A., & Musial, M. (2020). Précis d’ingénierie pédagogique. De Boeck Superieur. Virkkunen, J. (2006). Dilemmas in building shared transformative agency. Activités, 03(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/ activites.1850 Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. S. (2013). The change laboratory. SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-326-3 Voogt, J., Laferriere, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R., Hickey, D., & Mckenney, S. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43, 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9340-7 Voogt, J. M., Pieters, J. M., & Handelzalts, A. (2016). Teacher collaboration in curriculum design teams: Effects, mechanisms, and conditions. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(3–4), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611. 2016.1247725 Warr, M., & Mishra, P. (2023). Learning to see complexity: Teachers designing amidst indeterminacy. Professional Development in Education, 0(0), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2023.2253821 Yeh, Y.-F., Chan, K. K. H., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2021). Toward a framework that connects individual TPACK and collective TPACK: A systematic review of TPACK studies investigating teacher collaborative discourse in the learning by design process, Computers & Education, 171, 104238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104238 Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. SAGE. Zhang, W., & Tang, J. (2021). Teachers’ TPACK development: A review of literature. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 09(07), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2021.97027 PREPRINT