This contribution presents an innovative collaborative project between teachers and researchers focusing on the use of digital tools in school teaching. What is presented here is part of a large project at NTNU (LeadDig - Leadership and learning for the development of teachers' professional digital competence). The project started in the fall of 2024 and lasts for four years, involving six schools in a Norwegian municipality. One of the project's aims is to support and develop teachers' professional digital competence, such as developing a critical and conscious use of digital tools. In the project, the focus on development is both on the leader level and on the teacher level. At the leadership level in schools (how leaders can lead and support teachers' development and how to practice learning leadership), and at the teacher level (how to create good and meaningful processes that contribute to learning and development among teachers). In this presentation, the focus will be on joint analysis and reflection of classroom lessons conducted by teachers, where both teachers, leaders and researchers participate in the analysis/reflection. A research question in this part ot the project is: How to facilitate exploratory and developmental reflection conversations among teachers and leaders? 

The overarching theoretical foundation of the project is CHAT (Cultural-Historical Activity Theory) (Engeström (2001). CHAT was developed by Leontiev (1978, 1981), based on Vygotsky's thoughts and ideas (Wertsch, 1991). CHAT and sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) are both social constructivist theories (Prawat, 1996). Social constructivist theories emphasize the social environment as the basis for development and learning. As mentioned, Leontiev further developed Vygotsky's sociocultural theory, while the activity system has been developed based on CHAT (Engeström, 1987, 1999, 2001; Engeström & Miettinen, 1999). Engeström's (2001) expansion of Vygotsky's (1978) original triangle, consisting of mediating artifacts, subject, and object, to also include rules/norms, community, and division of labor, demonstrates how the collective dimension of human activity is structured and visualized through multiple triadic relationships. CHAT has its roots in the theory and research of the cultural-historical school in Russia around the 1920s and 1930s. The most significant theorists belonging to this school were Vygotsky, Leontiev, and Luria (Engeström & Miettinen, 1999).

In addition to developing teachers' professional digital competence, it is also a aim of the project to improve teaching practices through systematic observation, analysis, and reflection. By combining teachers' practical experiences with researchers' theoretical insights and outside perspective, we seek to develop a deeper understanding of teaching processes and student learning. In this study, the aim has been to intervene in teachers' professional development related to digital competence, while simultaneously researching the formative intervention that were initiated and the ongoing processes that take place in it.

This presentation primarily addresses the processes, meanings and tentativ results from the analysis / reflection dialogues. The methodological approach is a formative intervention divided into three levels. These are the planning of the lesson, the execution and observation of the lesson, and a structured analysis/reflection conversation after the lesson. All three stages of the chosen approach are based on teacher collaboration and collective processes. The approach for the formative intervention can be categorized under action learning/action research and is closely related to Lesson Study. We chose not to follow a Lesson Study process strictly, but the chosen approach has many similarities. Based on previous experiences, we have seen that analysis and reflection conversations can be demanding and challenging for teachers. Therefore, a method was developed to make a good and meaningful structure for how these conversations should be conducted. The participants in the reflection conversation consist of all those who participated as observers in the teaching. The approach to the reflection conversation is as follows: 1) The conversation is led by the school leader. 2) The conversation begins with the teacher who taught the lesson starting with their own reflection on the lesson. This includes their thoughts on the lesson, what worked well, what could have been done differently, etc. 3) The observers can provide two positive observations about the teaching. All observers should have the opportunity to speak, and during this round, the teacher who did not teach has the opportunity to comment continuously. 4) The teacher can respond to the feedback. 5) The observers should comment on something they are curious about or wonder about from the lesson. This can include critical feedback for which they seek an explanation or justification. 6) Once all observers have shared their questions or curiosities, the teacher can respond. 7) Two of the observers are assigned the task of having a meta-perspective on the reflection conversation that has taken place, observing and analyzing the conversation itself. This task has largely been assigned to two of the researchers who participated in the observation. Audio recordings have been made of all the reflection conversations conducted in the project so far.

Preliminary findings in the project/study show that both teachers and leaders believe that the structure of the conversations has contributed to increased focus and that they feel they are in a professional setting where the focus is on teachers' practice. Leaders and teachers also state that the conversations have contributed to a shift from talking about 'what' they do in their lessons and what actions they take, to discussing 'why' they do this and what purpose it serves for their students. It is also stated that there is a perception that teachers are talking to each other in a different way than before, with more focus on subjects and students' learning and development. Regarding digital competence, it also emerges that they talk about digital tools in a different way than before and that they are beginning to take a critical view of the use of digital tools. For example, they have started to discuss when digital tools add value to students' learning and development, and when they do not. Another positive finding related to the structure of the conversations is that there is an expectation that everyone participating in the conversations must contribute, and everyone must provide their input and opinions. A challenge related to the way the conversations are conducted is that they can be perceived as a bit too staged and formal due to the strict structure.

-Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy. -Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity Theory and Individual and Social Transformation. I Perspectives on Activity Theory, red. Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R. Punamaki, 19-38. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. -Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. -Engeström, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Perspectives on Activity Theory, edited by Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R. Punamaki, 1-16. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. -Leontiev, A.N., (1978). Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. -Lenotiev, A.N., (1981). The Problem of Activity in Psychology. In The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology, edited by J.V. Wertsch, 37-71. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. -Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. -Wertsch, J. V. 1991. Voices of the Mind. A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.